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

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!