Recommended Posts

Let me introduce you to the OS X fullscreen option. Introduced a year and a half ago and heavily critized by Windows users claiming that desktop guis should not be like tablet guis.

post-4652-0-11830900-1355182142.png

Wait what!?

I don't remember seeing that button on my macbook, and I've always used the green button... Am I missing something :s?

Let me introduce you to the OS X fullscreen option. Introduced a year and a half ago and heavily critized by Windows users claiming that desktop guis should not be like tablet guis.

post-4652-0-11830900-1355182142.png

In the interest of fairness:

1) Yup. Mac OS has offered full screen mode for a little while now. Complaining that it doesn't exist is a little behind the times, but...

2) Mac OS's full screen mode has some shortcomings. In what seems like nothing more than a raging desire to be as unlike every other OS as possible, OS X full screen mode is roughly the same as running a game full screen (all elements of the desktop completely disappear). For people who just want to quickly and easily set an application to take up the maximum available space while allowing access to common OS visual elements, Mac OS didn't exactly deliver, and it really is on par with "tablet mode" as a result.

Also, I *believe* the Mac OS full screen mode must have support coded into each and every application. That is, no applications predating the feature would allow it. It's an application "mode", not simply a view. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Aside: I do realize that it's very difficult to make a maximize equivalent in Mac OS. A window can't really "maximize" in any meaningful way, leaving all common OS visual elements available, due to Mac OS using both a universal menu bar and the massive-by-default dock. Unifying the two to increase available desktop area would likely never happen for branding reasons, and possibly also because of the no-copy agreement between Apple and Microsoft (a unified menu/appbar is Windows turf, after all).

Mac OS's full screen mode has some shortcomings. In what seems like nothing more than a raging desire to be as unlike every other OS as possible, OS X full screen mode is roughly the same as running a game full screen (all elements of the desktop completely disappear). For people who just want to quickly and easily set an application to take up the maximum available space while allowing access to common OS visual elements, Mac OS didn't exactly deliver, and it really is on par with "tablet mode" as a result.

Not quite right. You can access OS X components in fullscreen just like you would on Windows 8: Either by mouse proximity to certain hotspots or by shortcuts.

Also, you are right that the feature must be coded into apps. Just like Metro.

Except they do and it's not like 27-inch is the boundary where full-screen becomes useless.

Excluding techies, no they don't. I myself, won't buy anything great than 22 inch screens. They're too expensive, and too large.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=17&qpct=2&qpcd=13&qptimeframe=Y

Excluding techies, no they don't. I myself, won't buy anything great than 22 inch screens. They're too expensive, and too large.

Most people with the means will buy screens in excess of 23-inch. It's really that simple and something I see happening all the time. If your situation is different either by choice and/or financial restrictions that's fine too of course.

Most people with the means will buy screens in excess of 23-inch. It's really that simple and something I see happening all the time. If your situation is different that's fine too.

Marketshare indicators don't support your claims, though. In fact, most places don't even display monitors any bigger than 22 inches, and in all my years of supporting people, I have never seen anything bigger from the people/places I've supported. So, who exactly are snatching up these behemoths like you claim?

Marketshare indicators don't support your claims, though. In fact, most places don't even display monitors any bigger than 22 inches, and in all my years of supporting people, I have never seen anything bigger from the people/places I've supported. So, who exactly are snatching up these behemoths like you claim?

Obviously worldwide statistics will give you lower-res screens. Not to mention many people use laptops. I've been working for small IT support company in Amsterdam for four years now and I see 22/23-inch screens and up all the time in people's homes and at companies. The 21,5-inch iMac being the exception to the rule. Most really don't even bother with anything smaller. The last place I ran my internship, a large television network, all computers (both PC and Mac) were equipped with 21,5/22 to 30-inch screens. At college all computers, again both PC and Mac, are either 21,5-inch, 23-inch, 24-inch, 27-inch or 30-inch.

You always seem to have enormous difficulties with accepting views/experiences different from your own.

Anyway, here's a link to a popular Dutch computer store called MyCom. Notice how they only sell only two screens smaller than 21,5-inch? Both aren't being displayed in the actual MyCom stores anymore. I can assure you the situation isn't much different at most other computer stores.

I seem to be able to multi-task and use Windows 8 just like I used 7. All I need to do once I boot my computer is click the Desktop tile.

All I need to do once I boot my computer is nothing, as I'm already at the Desktop. (and without any third-party app helping me along) :)

Marketshare indicators don't support your claims, though. In fact, most places don't even display monitors any bigger than 22 inches, and in all my years of supporting people, I have never seen anything bigger from the people/places I've supported. So, who exactly are snatching up these behemoths like you claim?

What? Staples, Office Max and Office Depot - ALL have 23" monitors and above out on display. Heck, you can pick one up for under $150 on sale, that's what I paid for my 23".

I don't know where you shop, but if the big 3 office stores keep them in stock and on display, then you can bet every electronic big box store has them.

What? Staples, Office Max and Office Depot - ALL have 23" monitors and above out on display. Heck, you can pick one up for under $150 on sale, that's what I paid for my 23".

I don't know where you shop, but if the big 3 office stores keep them in stock and on display, then you can bet every electronic big box store has them.

23 inch monitors aren't the question here. The We're talking 27+. Dvorak wants to claim fullscreen "sucks" on 27+ inch monitors, but no consumer I know of owns a 27+ inch monitor. The most I see on sale, in store is 21, 22, and 23. The common one is 21.5 inches, and Windows 8 on those is nothing.

What? Staples, Office Max and Office Depot - ALL have 23" monitors and above out on display. Heck, you can pick one up for under $150 on sale, that's what I paid for my 23".

I don't know where you shop, but if the big 3 office stores keep them in stock and on display, then you can bet every electronic big box store has them.

Heck, $499 can get you a 2560x1440 27" display getting a 4+ star rating over at Amazon. Price isn't exactly a limiting factor here.

I usually spend 99.999% of the time in desktop mode.

Recently, thanks to the excellent "StartisBack", I have been spending 99.999999% of the time in desktop mode.

On tablets, I have no problem with them, but forced full-screen apps on the desktop represents a huge, misguided, pointless step backwards.

Heck, $499 can get you a 2560x1440 27" display getting a 4+ star rating over at Amazon. Price isn't exactly a limiting factor here.

Right, I was just pointing out you can go to ANY office supply store and pick up a 23" to 25" HD monitor, and that they are on display and in stock. I mentioned mine because it was/is a cheap monitor that cost less @ 23" than several of 19" top of the line models. People always think bigger is better and if they are cheaper than their smaller counter parts you are going to move lots of big monitors.

I usually spend 99.999% of the time in desktop mode.

Recently, thanks to the excellent "StartisBack", I have been spending 99.999999% of the time in desktop mode.

On tablets, I have no problem with them, but forced full-screen apps on the desktop represents a huge, misguided, pointless step backwards.

Same here, I have both Start8 ans Startisback demos/trials going right now on different machines testing which I want to spring for. I guess the idea that desktop users wouldn't want a tablet UI flew right over the heads of Microsoft. Not even and option to keep the os in "desktop" mode. The biggest surprise for me was that they removed the ability to change your system fonts without hacking into the registry, it just stunned me.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!