__/ [ Tom Shelton ] on Tuesday 12 September 2006 02:49 \__
>
> John Hastings wrote:
>> This past weekend I helped a friend debug a small scheduling program
>> written with Delphi, on which I used to be pretty good - long, long ago.
>> It was the first time that I have used Windows for real in ages.
>>
>> Now, I enjoy the word smithing on this group as both sides try
>> oneupmanship on each other as to the merits of their favorite OS, but I
>> really don't care if a particular person uses Windows, Linux or does their
>> caculations on a stone tablet. (Except for you, Alan Connor - O' great
>> high maharaja king of the obnoxious loudmouthed posters. May you just
>> drop dead).
>>
>> But during the work I (remembered)(re)discovered an area in which Windows
>> is sadly lacking. As the number of individual windows grew, I kept moving
>> the cursor to the task bar to select another virtual desktop - and of
>> course, didn't find one. Editor, debugger, manual, object inspector, run
>> time results, etc - finally the one desktop resembled my old desk in my
>> office, with stacks of unfindable items piled on one another. Half the
>> work consisted of expanding and shrinking panels trying to find the one we
>> wanted and it only got worse as we needed to open a web session and do
>> some searching. I must have handled the problem once - just can't
>> remember how.
>>
>> Yes I do, come to think of it. I changed OS'es.
>>
>> A windows person probably won't even know what I am talking about, but
>> just the one item of virtual desktops pushes the productivity of the Linux
>> power user way out in front. I have mine set for 10 and usually have at
>> least 5 used.
>>
>> I wonder if the final version of Vista will have the feature, or do power
>> Windows users just stack hard glass screens side by side? (Actually, I
>> don't even know if Redmond products will use multiple monitors. I assume
>> they will.)
>>
>
> I'm running a 19 and 21 inch crt as we speak on XP Pro. IMHO, I have
> never been able to get used to running multiple desktops - not that
> they aren't available for windows. There are 3rd party implementations
> and MS even provides a powertoy for XP (kind of sucks for flexability).
> Nope, multiple monitors are way, way mor productive. Really, what's
> the big deal... You can't see all this stuff at once on multiple
> desktops - I don't find it any more/less productive then just alt-tab.
What if task X involves an editor and some papers (possibly in shaded
windows)? While another involves multiple open directories in the file
manager, assuming no tabbed browsing of the filesystem? Alt-tabbing cannot
have multiple windows grouped. What's more, it's nice to see wallpapers
change to suit the task at hand. Lastly, Alt-(SHIFT*)-tabbing has sequential
type of movement, which cannot beat, e.g. CTRL+[F1-12) where each number is
associated with a task. It's quicker and more natural. Even one large
desktop (the 30-inch monitors, for example) do not obviate the need for
this. Before I began making use virtual desktop I thought I was doing fine.
But I was far less productive. Blissful ignorance perhaps. Even use of the
newsreader is improving all the time.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: There are five regular polyhedra
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 5 Jul 20 12:15 last=S
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
