
Why did it take so long for Windows to support multi-monitor taskbars? - nikbackm
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2014/06/04/10530714.aspx
======
srhngpr
Z-Bar [1] is a fantastic free and lightweight solution I've been for years.
Highly recommend for those using Windows 7, especially in the Enterprise as it
requires no installation and it is only 2 files.

[1]:
[http://www.zhornsoftware.co.uk/zbar/](http://www.zhornsoftware.co.uk/zbar/)

------
TeeWEE
I like this cost/benefit analysis. Often people forget that, when building a
product, there are tons of features wanted, with different costs, and
different benefits. Its not easy todo the right thing.

~~~
BlakePetersen
Allow people not on your payroll to take care of these sort of low-return
items. (Open Source?!)

~~~
smacktoward
They already do. Stardock, for instance, has built a pretty good business
providing power-user enhancements to Windows (see
[http://www.stardock.com/products/?from=nav](http://www.stardock.com/products/?from=nav)).

------
FollowSteph3
I have 3 monitors and use ultramon as a utility to do this. I can totally
appreciate that the population here is not the norm and whatever metrics we
see here is an outlier.

In most cases I assume people use laptops with one monitor. The percentage of
desktops with two monitors can't be too high. So when you combine laptop and
desktop it lowers the total percentage. How many of us have a laptop in
addition to out desktop that is never connected to another monitor ;)

------
neil_s
My guess for why it made it into Windows 8 isn't that it was randomly suddenly
worthwhile, its because a multi-monitor setup becomes more important in the
new workstation/tablet hybrid tool that Microsoft is creating. I carry my
Surface around, using it as a laptop or tablet, but at home or at the lab, it
plugs into larger external monitors to enable maximum productivity.

------
JetSpiegel
Forget about multi-monitors, what about workspaces? That's one of Windows'
main failing.

I have a single monitor, but with four workspaces I have a lot of screen real
estate.

~~~
calciphus
Workspaces have been available since XP.

It's available as a Microsoft "powertoy" as well as countless open source and
free programs.

Virtual Desktop Manager. Sorry you missed it for 12 years.

[http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/xp-
downloads#2TC=...](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/xp-
downloads#2TC=powertoys)

~~~
JetSpiegel
I did miss it. Oh well, no use crying over spilled milk.

They really have a branding problem, calling that Powertoy...

------
TillE
> I would hazard that fewer than ten percent of users use a multiple-monitor
> system on a regular basis, so any benefit would have to be ten times as
> great as the benefit of features that have broader use.

What kind of logic is that? And how would you even mathematically quantify the
"benefit" of such a feature, save through tedious usability studies that could
only come after you've implemented it?

~~~
prawks
You need some sort of cost/benefit to go off of to make decisions on which
features get included and which get cut.

One way: consider how many Windows users would switch OS's or not chose a
Windows computer as their next purchase due to the lack of multi-monitor
taskbars. I don't need any sort of study to say that it's probably not a very
high number.

~~~
devcpp
Single features don't make up my mind when choosing an OS. By that logic, the
only deciding UI feature would be a mechanism to switch between tasks. I don't
think anyone will stop using Windows because of the lack of widgets or of a
find feature or of a crappy task manager.

You want a cost/benefit criteria? How about (number of people who care) * (how
much they care) instead of just (number of people who care)?

~~~
prawks
I wasn't presenting the be-all, end-all criteria for determining which
features to implement, just that there needs to be one in order to make a
decision. Your example is likely better, and I'm sure Microsoft's taskbar team
uses their own method:

"Part of the hard job of product design is deciding which 20 features you have
the resources to pursue and which 180 to leave for next time. If you choose
the right 20, people will say you're the best new UI feature in Windows, or
even the best Windows 7 feature, and they won't mind too much that you didn't
get to the other 180."[1]

I think single features can certainly sway a purchaser. If I like the OS X
notification center quite a bit and its integration with 3rd party
applications I use a lot, then it may well cause me to lean in the direction
to purchase a MacBook over a Lenovo. Of course they're all taken as parts of a
whole, but it's still conceivable that people may not be able to perform their
job/task in a way that they are accustomed to without X feature.

In addition, while some features may not sway you, it is not unlikely that you
are an exception to the rule.

[1]
[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2010/05/31/10017...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2010/05/31/10017567.aspx)

------
Aoyagi
And this is why Windows Phone is what it is. The only thing MS is actually
interested in is what (they think) directly projects to sales according to
analyses, which are undoubtedly mostly based on "automated feedback" from
current users and other "big data". Where are the times they actually cared
for the (vocal) minorities?

~~~
varkson
MS is still a business. Why should they care about the vocal minorities?

~~~
nikatwork
It can be argued that opinionated design is more successful that design by
committee. I think the most effective approach is to begin with opinionated
design prototypes then triage and refine using A/B testing.

MS can be accused of relying too heavily on user surveys, making their designs
a bland blending of averages that please nobody (see: the Office Ribbon). Thus
the Ford quote gets trotted out, "If I had asked people what they wanted, they
would have said faster horses."

------
emehrkay
Now Windows needs virtual desktops. I wonder if that is on "the list" Windows
feels weird to me simply because that is missing.

~~~
codeulike
Apparently now that Metro is out there for lightweight users, there is more
scope for making things like Virtual Desktops for power users - see

"Windows UI designer explains why forcing Metro on all is great for power
users"

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/2098585/windows-ui-
designer-e...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2098585/windows-ui-designer-
explains-why-forcing-metro-on-all-is-great-for-power-users.html)

~~~
noblethrasher
I hope that it's true. The only evidence that the article cites is a few
comments on reddit.

------
the_ancient
I am still always shocked at the number of people that have single monitor
setups...

I have to have at minimum 3, I have quads setup in my home office.. I could
not function on a single monitor system

~~~
dublinben
Many users don't even have a desktop anymore.

~~~
silverbax88
Do you mean ignoring laptops? Because I believe the most recent statistic I
saw was that 60% of users still do a considerable amount of computing on a
desktop/laptop.

~~~
freehunter
Generally the category desktop excludes laptops, which are in the category of
laptop.

------
moron4hire
I like the one comment lamenting people saying, "It can't be _that_ difficult
to implement." If you're not the person who is in the code and doing it, you
don't know. You can't say what is hard and what is not hard. You don't know
what the code currently does, what systems it makes available to support the
change. Perhaps the feature itself is small, but getting things in place to
support the change is not.

~~~
DougWebb
It may not be easy, but there are certainly several add-on products that
support this feature and they have no where near the same level of resources
and know-how that the Microsoft team in charge of the taskbar has. So it seems
unlikely that "hard to implement" was a primary reason for not implementing
this sooner.

~~~
moron4hire
But that certainly ties into the cost-benefit analysis. For the small
percentage of users that would want such a feature, they are probably also the
users most capable of finding those 3rd party tools. So the percentage of
people for whom implementing this feature natively would _actually_ benefit is
incredibly small compared to the cost of implementing it, even if the cost
isn't that high.

I deal with this with my client all the time. He thinks adding a column to a
report is "easy" because "it's just one thing". He thinks changing a constant
factor in an equation is "hard" because it dramatically changes the output.

It's the complete opposite. Maybe the data he wants in the column isn't being
tracked. Maybe it's not even very well defined. But he is like all users, all
he knows is the output, there is no intrinsic knowledge of the input or the
process.

------
jack-r-abbit
I haven't had an old school desktop[1] in a long time. Laptops have been it
for me for years. And I've always had an external monitor attached to it. I
find the multi-monitor taskbar in Win 8 (at home) to be pretty useful. I've
tried several apps to add that to Win 7 (at work) but they all sucked. So I
gave up.

[1] Technically, I've never put those computers _on_ the desk... as it has
always been _under_ the desk. It seems strange to call those _desktops_ but
that seems to be the standard name for something that is not a laptop.

Edit: Yes, I should have clarified that I am fully aware of computers going on
top of the desk. I even had one that was meant to but I used a stand to hold
it up right and placed it on the floor (I guess like a _tower_ ). But that was
with floppies and not a CD so it worked out just fine. I was just saying it
was weird for _me_ to call _my_ old computers _desktops_ since I never put
them there. Also, there are a good number of systems that are not really meant
to be put on the desktop but are still called desktops to separate them from
laptops... which are more often on the top of my desk than on my lap. :)

~~~
Luc
I supposed they were named 'desktops' to express how small they are, i.e. not
occupying the room, or at least a furniture by itself.

~~~
thomasz
In the stone age, your computer was standing on _top_ of the _desk_ , with a
monitor on top of it.

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Ibm_pc_51...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Ibm_pc_5150.jpg)

~~~
linker3000
...and then a manufacturer (possibly Compaq or someone more esoteric like
Mannesmann Tally), came out with a Mini-tower design and a few arrived at
work. Seeing how 'cool' this new arrangement was, some of our engineers took
their IBM PC units off their desks and sat them upright at the side.

A few weeks later, the IBM PCs started to die because the retrofitted 5.25"
full height hard disks (probably 10-20MB!) began to seize up - the spindle
bearings had 'worn in' in one orientation and didn't take too kindly to being
tipped on end. Sometimes a good whack would get things moving - if not, it was
time for a new (and very expensive) hard disk.

------
abengoam
If I had to guess the reason, I would say that the new Windows devices are
going to include many more small screens, which MS forecasts will make
secondary (bigger) displays much more common than with traditional Windows
PCs.

------
mdhgriffiths
This was an issue for me this morning when my recently installed copy of
UltraMon had expired.

Instead of purchasing a license (which I would be happy to do, but cannot on
this workstation as it belongs to the company and was denied), I was
introduced to an open-source alternative here:
[http://sourceforge.net/projects/dualmonitortb/](http://sourceforge.net/projects/dualmonitortb/)

Not as feature-complete as UltraMon - though provides me with a working
taskbar on my second monitor.

Anyone on HN know of more software to extend the taskbar? Open-source, free or
commercial.

~~~
x0054
Buy the license, crack UltraMon. This way you have what you want and your
karma is clean. :) I used to use UltraMon on my desktop all the time, before
moving to OSX. I find it preposterous that the multi monitor task bar is so
hard to implement that it wasn't worth doing until Windows 8.

------
vidyesh
I used Actual Tool's Actual Multiple Monitor on Windows 7 and it has some
amazing features.

Upgrading to Windows 8, I stopped using that tool and I am ( mostly )
satisfied with Windows 8 support for multiple monitors. But I still miss a lot
of features. From all I miss one feature the most, the system stray on
secondary monitor. For some reason it was very convenient to have it. And
launch applications from system tray on the secondary monitor itself.

------
luckyno13
I was actually just thinking about this yesterday. I finally took the leap and
got a second monitor back in the winter time because I found doing school work
(it was my first semester) tedious on one screen. Type, alt tab look at info,
alt tab at another source, alt tab to type - too much. Now I cant imagine
going back to single monitor and wish I could have a second one at work to
help with my productivity here as well.

------
guiambros
I've been using Display Fusion [1] for years, and it's a great multi-monitor
taskbar, with lots of other useful enhancements - hotkeys, wallpapers, window
management, etc.

Multi-monitor support (or lack thereof) is one of the things that makes me
cringe every time I'm dual-booting Linux/Gnome3.

[1] www.displayfusion.com

------
Shivetya
Nice explanation that even what we consider simple can and usually is
expensive once you find all the touch points.

Well that and I never knew I wanted this feature, doubtful I would. I tend to
like knowing that the session with the bar is the main window

------
jmount
Because the average home consumer doesn't use the feature. Have any of the
common OSs does this well (OSX sure didn't, did Linux?)?

~~~
baldfat
Linux: Well asking that question is impossible to answer. Depends on the
desktop environment. BUT by default No But if you put in the time to set
things up most of the time yes.

KDE4 - Yes, but might have to fiddle a bit. Do able. Gnome 3 - Not really LXQT
- Yes i3 (Tiled Window Manager) - Yes perfectly BUT I had to set everything up
by hand. I love i3!

~~~
virtualwhys
i3 is indeed the best of the bunch as far as tiling WMs go on Linux (IMO of
course, some prefer Awesome, X Monad, etc.).

As far as setup goes i3 is an absolute cake walk (relative to Awesome et al
where you have to script your way to Nirvana), just edit provided config to
your liking (yes, if you want conky piped into i3 status bar you have to do a
little homework, but otherwise ridiculously straight forward).

If you prefer a full blown DE you can actually wrap a tiling WM over the DE
(i.e. they can work together) so the answer to the OP is an emphatic yes, any
Linux can do the trick.

~~~
jon-wood
Does i3 support each monitor showing an independent workspace like XMonad
does? I can't say I'm the world's biggest fan of XMonad, which tends to be a
pain to configure, but I just can't live without being able to have each
monitor acting as independent entity any more!

~~~
virtualwhys
> Does i3 support each monitor showing an independent workspace like XMonad
> does?

How do you mean? That sounds like basic TWM functionality. I know with
something like Compiz when you switch to a workspace all of your monitors
switch at the same time, which is kind of pointless.

i3 gives you 95% of what you _could_ do yourself with Awesome, Xmonad et al,
just without having to do much of anything beyond edit a config and choose
which apps you'd like bound to which workspaces, which ones should go to the
scratchpad (e.g. Skype, VLC, etc.), which ones should be floatable and so on.

The ability to tab tiles is probably the killer feature of i3, if you do
sysadmin work being able to break a set of 20 terminals into a quadrant of 5
tabbed terminals each all on a single screen is pretty much a dream ;-)
Furthermore you can tile vertically and horizontally within any given region,
it's turtles all the way down...

------
benaston
Because they've got a shit codebase?

------
BlakePetersen
So, essentially the answer is, "We're not Open Source." Nice.

~~~
maaaats
How did you reach that conclusion?

~~~
BlakePetersen
Because they are complaining about factors that an Open Source approach would
mitigate, like development resources and targeting features that make the most
money as opposed to what benefits the community.

If Windows was Open Source, this would have been addressed a long time ago as
this feature is desirable to what one would consider a power user. Advanced
users are also the ones who roll up their sleeves and will fix a problem if
they can, especially if no one from the parent company is making any effort to
do so. But, thanks to Closed Source protectionism, they can't. And because
their value to Microsoft is the same as any other user as they pay the same
license fees as anyone else, the voice of the power user is drowned out and
their concerns are never addressed.

This is just one glowing example of Closed Source working against the
betterment of a platform.

Seriously, how can one NOT reach the same conclusion?

~~~
DanBC
Mulitple monitor features are not great across a wide range of open source
OSs, even though developers are a large userbase of multiple monitors and open
source OSs.

~~~
welterde
> Mulitple monitor features are not great across a wide range of open source
> OSs

What exactly do you mean by that? I never had any issues with multiple monitor
setups (or noticed any lack of features..)

~~~
BlakePetersen
I actually just noticed the menu scaling feature (new in 14.04) over the
weekend. And it is "multi-monitor" in scope as it can be defined per monitor
as opposed to globally.

I doubt that feature was approached with a "This better make up for the Ubuntu
phone!" mindset.

Some features that may be lacking would be some Ultramon offers, like menu bar
buttons to send the window to the another monitor or span the entire set of
screens, but now that I run a 3-monitor set up with two in portrait mode, that
sort of feature doesn't really strike my fancy. Plus dragging works.

------
lectrick
Why did it take so long for Windows to support multiple monitors _period_?

Macs have had multi-monitor support since _1987_ with the introduction of the
Mac II.

Perhaps it is because Windows is primarily a low-cost consumer OS.

~~~
CurtHagenlocher
Or perhaps it's because the Macintosh in 1987 was an almost-entirely closed
ecosystem with Apple dictating all the terms while the "PC" was an environment
where dozens if not hundreds of vendors might have to agree on a specification
that could make something like this work.

~~~
yuhong
Yea, in particular NuBus had auto configuration from the beginning while on
the ISA bus fixed port addresses was common. I think IBM supported multiple
XGAs on the MCA bus.

~~~
mzs
You could do it with two adapters which used different base addresses and
ports. Maybe my father used an MGA or Hercules and EGA together.

~~~
yuhong
I know, many debuggers supported it.

~~~
mzs
Debugger was a good hint for what to google, thanks.
[http://www.seasip.info/VintagePC/dualhead.html](http://www.seasip.info/VintagePC/dualhead.html)

