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

    • I used a Pixel 10 Pro XL when it first came out for about 8 months. When I first got it, it was using Google assistant and that was fast, when asking it to call somone etc. Then it automatically switched with some update to Gemini. Doing even the simplist of things like asking it to call someone in my contacts was soooooo slow compared to Google assistant. I guess it had to go out to the cloud to do that? Back on iPhone and while Siri is dumb right now, it does do those simple things, like call someone, set a timer, star the stop watch etc, really fast. That an while I like Google Material Design 3 over iOS 26, they Pixel 10 Pro XL was so slow in comparison to the iPhone 17 Pro I am using.
    • I use Gemini in my rotation of AI clients...that work pays for. It is good at most things, better than copilot for imgage searching and making images, worse at writing vs Claude and way worse at hadling technical issues when it comes to Azure stuff. I also use YT premium and maps. Anything else Google is a pass for me. I have now seen multiple people locked out of their Google accounts for reasons that are just very vauge.
    • Microsoft is building an AI datacenter that "uses less water than a fast food restaurant" by Ivan Jenic Image: Microsoft Microsoft has announced plans to build a new datacenter campus in Pecos, Texas, as the company continues to invest billions in AI infrastructure. The new facility, called project Kilby, will reportedly have a capacity of 2 gigawatts and will be one of the largest single capacity additions in the company’s history. To power the campus, Microsoft signed a 20-year deal with Chevron to supply natural gas from the Permian Basin, America's largest oil field. This deal is set to become the largest collaboration to date between a U.S. oil and gas giant and Big Tech. It’s no secret that Big Tech has often been criticized for exploiting natural resources for its AI developments. Microsoft is trying to mitigate some of that negative consensus by promising to build its own power supply for the new datacenter, independent of the public grid. The Pecos datacenter will be powered by a power plant hub, built by Chevron, with up to 2.5 gigawatts of gas-fired capacity, with potential to scale to up to 5 gigawatts. The facility will include at least seven GE Vernova turbines, with first power potentially coming online as early as late 2027 or early 2028. The power plant hub is part of an approximately $7 billion investment by Chevron, making it one of the largest dedicated energy projects tied to a single datacenter campus in the U.S. Microsoft hasn’t publicly disclosed the amount it’s investing in the new datacenter. Microsoft has also committed to implementing a closed-loop cooling system that will only require an initial water charge to operate. The company said that “the total lifecycle water use of this datacenter is only a fraction of that consumed annually by a typical fast-food restaurant.” What the press release doesn’t mention, however, is how much water the natural gas plant itself will consume, or how a 20-year fossil fuel commitment squares with the company's pledge to be carbon negative by 2030. The construction of the new datacenter should provide over 6,000 construction jobs at peak build-out, and create hundreds of operational job roles once the facility is built. Via: Reuters
    • A lot of uncertainty in this story. Might. Could. Maybe. The truth is we don't know what will happen to the universe in the end, or if it will end. Our own Milky Way galaxy will merge with the Andromeda galaxy in about 2.5 billion years, with our solar system as part of a new, larger cluster. I guess we'll have to and see how it goes down.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      tuben earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      mnsgroup earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Conversation Starter
      sumytbe earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      B4dM1k3 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      DarkWun earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      523
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      195
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      94
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      82
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!