5 ms·

Am I the only one who hardly sees any value in window managers? About 99% of the time, I'm wanting only one window visible at a time, with others quickly access

by MaysonL 14y ago

Am I the only one who hardly sees any value in window managers? About 99% of the time, I'm wanting only one window visible at a time, with others quickly accessible via cmd-tab and cmd=`.

mauriciogardini 14y ago
I was discussing this some minutes ago with a friend of mine: if you have a 11" or 13" screen, that's the reasonable way to go (Unless if you are like me, of course, that feels the need to use Slate in a 13" screen)... But, if you can work with bigger screens, splitting your workspace and making more information available at the same time may be a good thing.
jacques_chester 14y ago
Lots of people -- I'm one of them -- find that switching whole windows seems to pop the mental stack. Whereas turning my head left and right does not do so. Most programming requires at least 4 logical views, IMO: 1. The code 2. The result of the code (web page, test results etc) 3. Documentation that supports coding 4. A control mechanism (ie, a terminal) No doubt there will be quibbling that some of these are really the same, blah blah. I don't care, I think 4 is the logical minimum and the physical assignment of those 4 basic information types is a matter for each programmer.
- abstractbill 14y ago
  Lots of people -- I'm one of them -- find that switching whole windows seems to pop the mental stack. That's really interesting! I have the opposite problem - switching windows doesn't pop my mental stack, but if there's anything on the screen other than what I'm trying to focus on, it keeps diverting my attention and ruining my concentration. Fullscreen emacs on OSX (without even the system menu bar!) is just awesome for me. Here's a screenshot of what my entire desktop looks like when I'm working on code: http://abstractnonsense.com/desktop-2013-02-17.png http://abstractnonsense.com/desktop-2013-02-17.png
  - micampe 14y ago
    You may find this little app useful http://willmore.eu/software/isolator/ http://willmore.eu/software/isolator/
    - abstractbill 14y ago
      Thanks, that does look quite awesome!
  - marchdown 14y ago
    How do you get true fullscreen mode in Emacs on OS X?
    - brainid 14y ago
      With Emacs 24 you can use ns-toggle-fullscreen.
      - marchdown 14y ago
        Emacs 24.2.1 here, no matches for "ns-toggle fullscreen". Edit: no luck with the latest pretest (24.2.93.1) either.
        dustingetz 14y ago
        for `M-x ns-toggle-fullscreen` you need `brew install emacs --cocoa`
    - abstractbill 14y ago
      I have (set-frame-parameter nil 'fullscreen 'fullboth) in my .emacs, and it just works (GNU Emacs 24.2.91.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin, NS apple-appkit-1038.36)).
    - nfg 14y ago
      If using macports then install using port install emacs-app +fullscreen Then ns-toggle-fullscreen as mentioned below.
jawngee 14y ago
I think it depends on how you "grew up" as a developer. Being "raised" in a Windows(tm) and OSX environment, alt-tabbing is a natural process, where maybe coming from an terminal/xwindows existence you are accustomed to the screen being carved up into squares. I think it also depends what kind of development you do. Doing iOS dev, I am constantly flipping between XCode, Photoshop, Chrome, Tower, Simulator and a bunch of other tools which don't play well with the idea of being sequestered to individual areas of the monitor. When I do openFrameworks development, I have to add multiple virtual machines to the mix (Windows and Linux while running on OSX) for cross-compiling and testing. I use two thunderbolt cinema displays and I still constantly run out of screen real estate so tools like these, though I've tried to use them, end up not fitting into how I work. ymmv.
wting 14y ago
I usually have 1-2 windows of documentation on one screen and 2-4 terminals open on another.[0] This allows me to prototype, compile, test, build, look up info with minimal window switching. The biggest advantage is never having to hunt for the correct window--everything is one keyboard shortcut away. [0]: http://i.imgur.com/xctkdtq.png http://i.imgur.com/xctkdtq.png The empty black box is due to my right monitor being in a vertical position.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
Maybe on my Macbook Air (and even then, it's almost always Chrome/Sublime side by side, or Sublime/terminal), but there is no application that needs my full 2560x1440 resolution. I can have two columns of my text editor, documentation and a terminal up. But I usually layer my terminal over my text editor and have it "stick to top". Just another thing I had to "hack" to make work in OS X that works out of the box in all Linux Window Managers. With Ubuntu working perfectly out of the box on my MBA, I don't know why more people don't just take the step and use Linux instead. It's so nice to leave the world of outdated development tools and a stupid window manager behind.
- eropple 14y ago
  > With Ubuntu working perfectly out of the box on my MBA, I don't know why more people don't just take the step and use Linux instead. Because the battery life is worse. (I have tested.) Because it runs hotter. Because the poor graphics drivers (for my rMBP) mean that it's running hotter for nothing. Because tiled window managers are not a solution for any problems I have. Because Ubuntu doesn't have Mission Control. Because IntelliJ isn't very good on Linux. Because Xcode doesn't exist on Linux. Because VMware Fusion doesn't exist on Linux and VirtualBox is insufficient. Because MacVim is nicer than GVim. . That Linux fits you is great; this stupid faux-mystified "I don't know why more people don't use this niche thing I like" is not.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    >Because the battery life is worse. (I have tested.) Not any more. I've owned MBA for 3 years now and have been using Ubuntu on the 2012 model for the last three months. I get every bit of battery life in Linux that I do in OS X. This wasn't true a year ago, but it is now. >Because it runs hotter. Not any more. Certainly not during day to day tasks. Certainly not during routine development. Certainly not while watching Flash videos. Certainly not while playing TF2. >Because the poor graphics drivers (for my rMBP) mean that it's running hotter for nothing. Linux is getting switching support. It's already useable. >Because tiled window managers are not a solution for any problems I have. I don't use a titling window manager. Besides, "I don't need those features" is a pretty sad arguing point. >Because Ubuntu doesn't have Mission Control. KWin, Compiz and Mutter ALL have support for Expose. KWin's implementation is actually nearly identical to the Mac implementation. In fact, they've had it for as long or longer than OS X has had it. >Because IntelliJ isn't very good on Linux. As someone who pays for an uses IntelliJ, I don't even know what the hell that means. >Because Xcode doesn't exist on Linux. And that's a good thing. >Because VMware Fusion doesn't exist on Linux and VirtualBox is insufficient. LOL. Is this even a serious point? Hello? VMWare Workstation? KVM+QEMU? Xen? >Because MacVim is nicer than GVim. Are you fucking kidding me? >"niche thing" Oh you're cute. I shouldn't have wasted my time replying to an obvious troll.
calinet6 14y ago
Agreed. And for quick shortcuts when I do need a window manager, ShiftIt works just fine. http://trisweb.github.com/ShiftIt/ http://trisweb.github.com/ShiftIt/
dbpatterson 14y ago
I almost always want only one window available (except terminals) - but don't want to have to think how to get to the other ones. When doing web development, I generally have some terminals open, my editor, and my web browser. If I use alt-tab, I need to remember which window I came from most recently - with xmonad, I _know_ alt-1 gets me to terminal, alt-2 to editor, alt-3 to web browser. It's minor but it is something I have to do hundreds of times each day, and avoiding the minor irritation of having alt/cmd-tabbed past the one I wanted is worth it.
martinced 14y ago
I'm using the "awesome WM" under Linux and I find it much more convenient to have "virtual desktops" and always organize them the same way (1 for personal GMail + Google Docs, 2 for terminals, 3 for Emacs, 4 for professional email, 5 for an IDE, 6 for browsing the web, etc.) and be able to directly go to the one desktop that I need using a shortcut. It's beats tabbing / cycling between opened apps any day. As a side benefit, each virtual desktop can have it's own windows layouts: you like your GMail / Google Docs to be full screen, use a full screen layout. You like your IDE to use 2/3rd of the screen and a browser used for testing to use the rest: so be it. The problem with your method is that you lose lost of time tabbing / cycling and then for the 1% of the time where you need a layout more complicated than "one windows visible" you spend time picking up the windows you want to show (and potentially manually fine-tuning their position using the mouse). So you hardly see any value in a window manager but others hardly see the value in losing time tabbing / cycling endlessly between apps when a single shortcut can display the app(s) they want in the layout they want.
- phaedrix 14y ago
  Just moved to a MBP Retina for the hardware after using Linux for years, and the main thing I miss is Awesome WM. After looking at Divvy, SizeUp and several others, finally settled on ShiftIt (primarily because of key shortcuts for resizing horizontally by custom percentages), but may have to give Slate a try...ShiftIt helps, but still no comparison to a decent Tiling WM like Awesome. https://github.com/fikovnik/ShiftIt https://github.com/fikovnik/ShiftIt

by MaysonL 14y ago

Am I the only one who hardly sees any value in window managers? About 99% of the time, I'm wanting only one window visible at a time, with others quickly accessible via cmd-tab and cmd=`.

mauriciogardini 14y ago

I was discussing this some minutes ago with a friend of mine: if you have a 11" or 13" screen, that's the reasonable way to go (Unless if you are like me, of course, that feels the need to use Slate in a 13" screen)... But, if you can work with bigger screens, splitting your workspace and making more information available at the same time may be a good thing.

jacques_chester 14y ago

Lots of people -- I'm one of them -- find that switching whole windows seems to pop the mental stack. Whereas turning my head left and right does not do so. Most programming requires at least 4 logical views, IMO: 1. The code 2. The result of the code (web page, test results etc) 3. Documentation that supports coding 4. A control mechanism (ie, a terminal) No doubt there will be quibbling that some of these are really the same, blah blah. I don't care, I think 4 is the logical minimum and the physical assignment of those 4 basic information types is a matter for each programmer.

abstractbill 14y ago
Lots of people -- I'm one of them -- find that switching whole windows seems to pop the mental stack. That's really interesting! I have the opposite problem - switching windows doesn't pop my mental stack, but if there's anything on the screen other than what I'm trying to focus on, it keeps diverting my attention and ruining my concentration. Fullscreen emacs on OSX (without even the system menu bar!) is just awesome for me. Here's a screenshot of what my entire desktop looks like when I'm working on code: http://abstractnonsense.com/desktop-2013-02-17.png http://abstractnonsense.com/desktop-2013-02-17.png
- micampe 14y ago
  You may find this little app useful http://willmore.eu/software/isolator/ http://willmore.eu/software/isolator/
  - abstractbill 14y ago
    Thanks, that does look quite awesome!
- marchdown 14y ago
  How do you get true fullscreen mode in Emacs on OS X?
  - brainid 14y ago
    With Emacs 24 you can use ns-toggle-fullscreen.
    - marchdown 14y ago
      Emacs 24.2.1 here, no matches for "ns-toggle fullscreen". Edit: no luck with the latest pretest (24.2.93.1) either.
      - dustingetz 14y ago
        for `M-x ns-toggle-fullscreen` you need `brew install emacs --cocoa`
  - abstractbill 14y ago
    I have (set-frame-parameter nil 'fullscreen 'fullboth) in my .emacs, and it just works (GNU Emacs 24.2.91.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin, NS apple-appkit-1038.36)).
  - nfg 14y ago
    If using macports then install using port install emacs-app +fullscreen Then ns-toggle-fullscreen as mentioned below.

jawngee 14y ago

I think it depends on how you "grew up" as a developer. Being "raised" in a Windows(tm) and OSX environment, alt-tabbing is a natural process, where maybe coming from an terminal/xwindows existence you are accustomed to the screen being carved up into squares. I think it also depends what kind of development you do. Doing iOS dev, I am constantly flipping between XCode, Photoshop, Chrome, Tower, Simulator and a bunch of other tools which don't play well with the idea of being sequestered to individual areas of the monitor. When I do openFrameworks development, I have to add multiple virtual machines to the mix (Windows and Linux while running on OSX) for cross-compiling and testing. I use two thunderbolt cinema displays and I still constantly run out of screen real estate so tools like these, though I've tried to use them, end up not fitting into how I work. ymmv.

wting 14y ago

I usually have 1-2 windows of documentation on one screen and 2-4 terminals open on another.[0] This allows me to prototype, compile, test, build, look up info with minimal window switching. The biggest advantage is never having to hunt for the correct window--everything is one keyboard shortcut away. [0]: http://i.imgur.com/xctkdtq.png http://i.imgur.com/xctkdtq.png The empty black box is due to my right monitor being in a vertical position.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Maybe on my Macbook Air (and even then, it's almost always Chrome/Sublime side by side, or Sublime/terminal), but there is no application that needs my full 2560x1440 resolution. I can have two columns of my text editor, documentation and a terminal up. But I usually layer my terminal over my text editor and have it "stick to top". Just another thing I had to "hack" to make work in OS X that works out of the box in all Linux Window Managers. With Ubuntu working perfectly out of the box on my MBA, I don't know why more people don't just take the step and use Linux instead. It's so nice to leave the world of outdated development tools and a stupid window manager behind.

eropple 14y ago
> With Ubuntu working perfectly out of the box on my MBA, I don't know why more people don't just take the step and use Linux instead. Because the battery life is worse. (I have tested.) Because it runs hotter. Because the poor graphics drivers (for my rMBP) mean that it's running hotter for nothing. Because tiled window managers are not a solution for any problems I have. Because Ubuntu doesn't have Mission Control. Because IntelliJ isn't very good on Linux. Because Xcode doesn't exist on Linux. Because VMware Fusion doesn't exist on Linux and VirtualBox is insufficient. Because MacVim is nicer than GVim. . That Linux fits you is great; this stupid faux-mystified "I don't know why more people don't use this niche thing I like" is not.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  >Because the battery life is worse. (I have tested.) Not any more. I've owned MBA for 3 years now and have been using Ubuntu on the 2012 model for the last three months. I get every bit of battery life in Linux that I do in OS X. This wasn't true a year ago, but it is now. >Because it runs hotter. Not any more. Certainly not during day to day tasks. Certainly not during routine development. Certainly not while watching Flash videos. Certainly not while playing TF2. >Because the poor graphics drivers (for my rMBP) mean that it's running hotter for nothing. Linux is getting switching support. It's already useable. >Because tiled window managers are not a solution for any problems I have. I don't use a titling window manager. Besides, "I don't need those features" is a pretty sad arguing point. >Because Ubuntu doesn't have Mission Control. KWin, Compiz and Mutter ALL have support for Expose. KWin's implementation is actually nearly identical to the Mac implementation. In fact, they've had it for as long or longer than OS X has had it. >Because IntelliJ isn't very good on Linux. As someone who pays for an uses IntelliJ, I don't even know what the hell that means. >Because Xcode doesn't exist on Linux. And that's a good thing. >Because VMware Fusion doesn't exist on Linux and VirtualBox is insufficient. LOL. Is this even a serious point? Hello? VMWare Workstation? KVM+QEMU? Xen? >Because MacVim is nicer than GVim. Are you fucking kidding me? >"niche thing" Oh you're cute. I shouldn't have wasted my time replying to an obvious troll.

calinet6 14y ago

Agreed. And for quick shortcuts when I do need a window manager, ShiftIt works just fine. http://trisweb.github.com/ShiftIt/ http://trisweb.github.com/ShiftIt/

dbpatterson 14y ago

I almost always want only one window available (except terminals) - but don't want to have to think how to get to the other ones. When doing web development, I generally have some terminals open, my editor, and my web browser. If I use alt-tab, I need to remember which window I came from most recently - with xmonad, I _know_ alt-1 gets me to terminal, alt-2 to editor, alt-3 to web browser. It's minor but it is something I have to do hundreds of times each day, and avoiding the minor irritation of having alt/cmd-tabbed past the one I wanted is worth it.

martinced 14y ago

I'm using the "awesome WM" under Linux and I find it much more convenient to have "virtual desktops" and always organize them the same way (1 for personal GMail + Google Docs, 2 for terminals, 3 for Emacs, 4 for professional email, 5 for an IDE, 6 for browsing the web, etc.) and be able to directly go to the one desktop that I need using a shortcut. It's beats tabbing / cycling between opened apps any day. As a side benefit, each virtual desktop can have it's own windows layouts: you like your GMail / Google Docs to be full screen, use a full screen layout. You like your IDE to use 2/3rd of the screen and a browser used for testing to use the rest: so be it. The problem with your method is that you lose lost of time tabbing / cycling and then for the 1% of the time where you need a layout more complicated than "one windows visible" you spend time picking up the windows you want to show (and potentially manually fine-tuning their position using the mouse). So you hardly see any value in a window manager but others hardly see the value in losing time tabbing / cycling endlessly between apps when a single shortcut can display the app(s) they want in the layout they want.

phaedrix 14y ago
Just moved to a MBP Retina for the hardware after using Linux for years, and the main thing I miss is Awesome WM. After looking at Divvy, SizeUp and several others, finally settled on ShiftIt (primarily because of key shortcuts for resizing horizontally by custom percentages), but may have to give Slate a try...ShiftIt helps, but still no comparison to a decent Tiling WM like Awesome. https://github.com/fikovnik/ShiftIt https://github.com/fikovnik/ShiftIt