Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops
-
Windows now has them and it's fine. I mean it took them like 20 years to finally implement it.
-
@stacksofplates said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
Windows now has them and it's fine. I mean it took them like 20 years to finally implement it.
True, but to be honest there has been 3rd party solutions for Windows for a long time as well.
-
@JaredBusch said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@Pete-S I must have only skimmed that thread, because I use two workspaces consitently.
When on my laptop (single screen) for a long time, I will often be using 3.
Yeah, I count myself as being addicted to it. I use it also when running two or three monitors.
I always have 12 set up because keyboard shortcuts fits the the 12 function key. I very seldom need them all.
Looks like this on an old laptop I'm using right now (win7):
-
@Pete-S I remember that discussion. Blew me away that people didn't know what they were, I've been using them since the mid 90s!
As always, Windows is way late to the party. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_desktop the Amiga 1000 was the first computer to implement virtual desktops, in 1985. From that wikipedia article, it sounds like Windows still doesn't have a native virtual desktop.
-
@travisdh1 said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@Pete-S I remember that discussion. Blew me away that people didn't know what they were, I've been using them since the mid 90s!
Perhaps it's because of the "easy to use" trap - hide everything powerful so new users don't get confused.
On some distros you have to go looking for it to find it.
-
@Pete-S said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@travisdh1 said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@Pete-S I remember that discussion. Blew me away that people didn't know what they were, I've been using them since the mid 90s!
Perhaps it's because of the "easy to use" trap - hide everything powerful so new users don't get confused.
On some distros you have to go looking for it to find it.
Yeah, it used to be very in your face in the 1990s. I think people coming over from Windows found it overwhelming as "too much power and choice" in Linux. It made the screen busier and most people aren't sure how to use it. So making it a hidden option made things seem more like Windows. For the average user, it's not useful, so I think that this tends to make sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@Pete-S said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@travisdh1 said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@Pete-S I remember that discussion. Blew me away that people didn't know what they were, I've been using them since the mid 90s!
Perhaps it's because of the "easy to use" trap - hide everything powerful so new users don't get confused.
On some distros you have to go looking for it to find it.
Yeah, it used to be very in your face in the 1990s. I think people coming over from Windows found it overwhelming as "too much power and choice" in Linux. It made the screen busier and most people aren't sure how to use it. So making it a hidden option made things seem more like Windows. For the average user, it's not useful, so I think that this tends to make sense.
I guess I don't see it being overly useful - all those things have to be running, right? I mean if you can lock an app to a specific screen to a specific set of dimensions, then maybe, so when you launch it in the future it's always in the same place, I suppose that could be helpful, but mostly it's a meh for me.
-
@Dashrender said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@scottalanmiller said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@Pete-S said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@travisdh1 said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@Pete-S I remember that discussion. Blew me away that people didn't know what they were, I've been using them since the mid 90s!
Perhaps it's because of the "easy to use" trap - hide everything powerful so new users don't get confused.
On some distros you have to go looking for it to find it.
Yeah, it used to be very in your face in the 1990s. I think people coming over from Windows found it overwhelming as "too much power and choice" in Linux. It made the screen busier and most people aren't sure how to use it. So making it a hidden option made things seem more like Windows. For the average user, it's not useful, so I think that this tends to make sense.
I guess I don't see it being overly useful - all those things have to be running, right? I mean if you can lock an app to a specific screen to a specific set of dimensions, then maybe, so when you launch it in the future it's always in the same place, I suppose that could be helpful, but mostly it's a meh for me.
I've always found them very useful. It is definitely something I wouldn't "get" until actually using them.
-
@Dashrender said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@scottalanmiller said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@Pete-S said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@travisdh1 said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@Pete-S I remember that discussion. Blew me away that people didn't know what they were, I've been using them since the mid 90s!
Perhaps it's because of the "easy to use" trap - hide everything powerful so new users don't get confused.
On some distros you have to go looking for it to find it.
Yeah, it used to be very in your face in the 1990s. I think people coming over from Windows found it overwhelming as "too much power and choice" in Linux. It made the screen busier and most people aren't sure how to use it. So making it a hidden option made things seem more like Windows. For the average user, it's not useful, so I think that this tends to make sense.
I guess I don't see it being overly useful - all those things have to be running, right? I mean if you can lock an app to a specific screen to a specific set of dimensions, then maybe, so when you launch it in the future it's always in the same place, I suppose that could be helpful, but mostly it's a meh for me.
That's the idea.
Let me give an example...
You are busily working on a design project. Graphics and whatnot. you have all the different things that you need set up so that you can work efficiently.
Then you have to work on a server that is down. For that you need an RDP session to the server and some documentation open.
Then you have to do some meeting and have paperwork ready for that meeting.
With "workspaces" you can set up all three as if they were totally different environments and hop between them "instantly" with everything in place and ready for the task at hand. It's all but useless for people on a focused task. but super useful for people who have to switch between essentially unrelated tasks.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@Dashrender said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@scottalanmiller said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@Pete-S said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@travisdh1 said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
@Pete-S I remember that discussion. Blew me away that people didn't know what they were, I've been using them since the mid 90s!
Perhaps it's because of the "easy to use" trap - hide everything powerful so new users don't get confused.
On some distros you have to go looking for it to find it.
Yeah, it used to be very in your face in the 1990s. I think people coming over from Windows found it overwhelming as "too much power and choice" in Linux. It made the screen busier and most people aren't sure how to use it. So making it a hidden option made things seem more like Windows. For the average user, it's not useful, so I think that this tends to make sense.
I guess I don't see it being overly useful - all those things have to be running, right? I mean if you can lock an app to a specific screen to a specific set of dimensions, then maybe, so when you launch it in the future it's always in the same place, I suppose that could be helpful, but mostly it's a meh for me.
That's the idea.
Let me give an example...
You are busily working on a design project. Graphics and whatnot. you have all the different things that you need set up so that you can work efficiently.
Then you have to work on a server that is down. For that you need an RDP session to the server and some documentation open.
Then you have to do some meeting and have paperwork ready for that meeting.
With "workspaces" you can set up all three as if they were totally different environments and hop between them "instantly" with everything in place and ready for the task at hand. It's all but useless for people on a focused task. but super useful for people who have to switch between essentially unrelated tasks.
That's a great example.
Sometimes it useful also when you are working on the same task if it requires lots of windows.
The only time I feel multiple desktops are not as useful is when working directly on a small laptop where you are basically running every app in full screen. Then I have little need for multiple desktops because I only see one application at a time and I'm not really using the "desktop" at all.
-
KDE 4 took this a level further with their plasma workspaces. They were workspace type specific (normal desktop vs quick launch vs whatever else) along with backgrounds and widgets.
-
Anyone uses tiling windows with workspaces?
-
@black3dynamite said in Virtual Desktops / Workspaces / Multiple Desktops:
Anyone uses tiling windows with workspaces?
Yeah I do with i3. Whenever I run i3 I always use the workspaces. You almost have to
-
I don't really use them. I have 3 monitors though. they have been around forever it seems but limited use for me. I do it occasionally but not really out of necessity.
