Or maybe I just want to get some god damn work done here.
Apple, we know you can do this stuff ever since the days the genie minimize effect was introduced (or shift-minimize for ultra slow!). Please, get some sanity and just put an advanced panel somewhere in the system preferences with, among other things (tabs in Finder?) an animation = slow/normal/fast/disabled option. We should not need to resort to plist hacks.
That's assuming the contest is a mutually exclusive OSX vs iOS game and not OSX vs Windows. If you assume the latter, OSX is also a proven consumer OS for Apple along with iOS.
>Hopefully they will at least give the user more control and options so they can tweak it to their needs/tastes. I am sceptical though.
I think you are right to be skeptical. I think Apple considers both OSes their 'golden child', especially with the absolutely massive gains OSX is making in the PC segment, and they are fully embracing the general consumer computing market. Everything they are doing signals a move to simplicity and familiarity with OSX being the system that is 'reigned in and streamlined' in the process.
If grey linen and genie animations bum you out, I think it's going to get worse before it gets better, and also, it's not really going to get better.
I personally don't mind OSX taking design elements from iOS, hiding powerful features in the name of simplicity (as long as they are still there), animations, linen, etc. As long as the features are still there and the OS is fast, I'm good. Unfortunately, the OS isn't fast. SL-->Lion introduced a sluggishness that is very real and very annoying, though I would probably never notice it if I hadn't upgraded from a much snappier SL.
While that is imminently rational, the problem in many organizations is due to internal political struggles. Apple might be experiencing this, as iOS starts to vastly eclipse OSX in terms of installed base and profits.
Microsoft has definitely lived this for decades (and even explicitly enshrined it in their values by Gates, Ballmer, etc "don't threaten Windows") and IMHO, it has led to their stagnation.
Apple before has admitted to moving devs before between OS projects, as they share a LOT of common frameworks/codebase.
> UNIX based OS with an accessible filesystem
I don't think Apple cares, really. From their point of view, it's all about the consumer. If the consumer keeps buying their devices us power users ("developers") will continue to buy the hardware too. To write apps. And that's all Apple cares about.
Look Apple has never had great developer relations. Never. But I gotta tell you, right now it's the worse I've ever seen.
Look to sum up, most "regular" consumers are using one screen. Doesn't matter what us here use (and I'd call us power users). The masses uses one screen. And that's all Apple cares about. I doubt we'll ever see this issue resolved.
I agree in a way, and I think we power users (as a whole) are a bit hypocritical. Whenever Apple leaves the most "backward" x% of users behind, it's just cutting stinky slack (no 32-bit, no iSync, no Rosetta...). When the tiny top x% of power users suffer, the iWorld is coming to an end and Apple is at fault.
But there's actually something that we can do: public shaming. Apple has already taken some steps back in 10.8: Ungrouping of apps in MC, pseudo-three-column layout in Address Book, less visual clutter in Calendar and the calendar list panel made it back. If blogs duly ridicule Lion as the Vista of OS X and keep going even after the release of ML, I have hope that Apple will take note. After all, there must be some people inside of Apple who agree with "us" too.
And even economically, Apple should be happy if we buy Cinema Displays or at least more of their overpriced adapters.
That's the key with Apple. Bad press is the ONLY time they respond. Anyone know Walt Mossberg?
Such an important point I thought I would highlight it. On HN there is often talk of "good will" with developers and the effect of that. The fact is good will doesn't trump market opportunity. Market opportunity is like good looks. It gets you the girl (even if you're a dick). Helping the girl with her physics homework gets you good will but won't get you laid.
Indeed the current implementation is severely lacking. It's jarring when you plug a MacBook to a TV, pop in a DVD video, which starts the official DVD Player, and put it in full screen. Possible scenarios include:
- you are in mirror mode: this means the TV and the internal display will be at their common denominator, suboptimal in both resolution and aspect ratio.
- you are not in mirror mode: the primary display is irrevocably the built-in one. DVD Player goes fullscreen on that 13", while you can enjoy 42" of glorious Lion linen. Of course you don't want to close the screen, unless you have both fed the laptop with AC and have an external peripheral at hand to control Apple Remote, an external keyboard or a Magic Trackpad, which is a ludicrous situation.
The current solution is of course to use VLC, which goes around Lion's fullscreen API.
Yet I see a solution ahead.
In Lion an app "going fullscreen" really means "the app gets its own space" (I thus prefer the term "fullspace" instead). What's more, since Spaces have been introduced, a multihead setup lies in a single, giant Space all across. It follows that since the two screens are one unique Space, an app going fullspace will (under the current implementation) take over the two screens.
That's the problem, and so there's the solution: in a dual-head setup, the two screens should be two independent spaces, not one across.
This solves a good deal of issues:
- fullspace immediately occupies only one screen, with the other ones available to desktops or other fullspace apps
- windows can be moved from one monitor to an other monitor from Mission Control. This is not possible currently: you have to exit Mission Control and drag the window to the other screen.
- windows can be moved from one monitor to another space on another monitor from Mission Control. This is not possible currently: you have to exit MC, drag the window as the previous case, enter MC again and drag the window to the other space.
- and why not, Spaces could be rearranged not only inside each monitor, but across monitors. Take Desktop2 on Screen1, drag it on Screen2 after Desktop3, take fullspaced QuickTime on Screen3, put in on Screen1. There are problems to be solved, like when resolutions differ, but that's really not the end of the world.
MC literally begs for those four features.
I don't know if Apple thought of it yet (probably) and if they want to go that way (who knows, really). For all I know it would mean a heavy deal of refactoring of the current Spaces implementation (e.g see how currently Desktop1 is never reorderable, how fishy...).
Space 1: Left Monitor - Chrome (Work profile), Middle Monitor - IDE, Right Monitor - Terminal
Space 2: Left Monitor - Chrome (Personal profile), Middle Monitor - Itunes and Spotify, Right Monitor - Misc. non work stuff.
If I'm working on two projects, each gets its own space and browser window.
This way I can more effectively tune out Personal distractions.
I think you're in the minority of the hn community. I'm not entirely sure that you're in the minority in the general population.
You can change which screen is the 'primary display'.
You have to drag the menu bar on the diagram onto the display you want to be the primary.
Of course, that fixes one thing, but then your laptop screen is rendered useless instead.
Edit: ah, after checking, the drag-the-menubar thing is actually written in the prefpane, and there's no checkbox. Silly me.
It could be hidden behind the existing — and checked by default — option "Automatically rearrange Spaces".
For instance on one monitor I could flip between email, the specs for what I'm working on, etc in different desktops. The other monitor can have a browser that I'm testing in, my code, etc in different desktops.
I never knew that existed. What possible purpose could that serve save to show off some gimmick?
- Open a terminal, enter "killall Dock", don't press return yet.
- Surf to HackerNews in your favorite webbrowser ;).
- Hold shift and minimize the window.
- Very quickly switch to the terminal and press return.
Now your browser is stuck somewhere halfway the transition. The nice thing is that you can still use your web browser in its deformed state.
You can fix your web browser by (really) minimizing and then maximizing it.
Are the desktop transitions really so slow that you would want to "cancel" one before it finished?
This comes from working on a '10 MBP with Lion. Full screen is basically like "Maximize" in Windows. To me it was shocking that in 2011 that was touted as a new feature.
Other things bother me too, like constantly getting the "beachball" for seemingly simple actions and xcode crashing if I breath too hard.
I just assume most people aren't having a similar experience.
I feel like Apple is just trying to screw devs and power users over in a desperate attempt to pull in the iOS crowd. Simple things like crippling Exposé and Spaces, which would easily allow to me see all windows and quickly switch between them, to combine it in Mission Control (which is all flash and no substance), was the first thing that annoyed me. Seeing them push the App Store to the point that they're going to make it more difficult for developers to distribute their apps outside it is also worrying.
Also, I seriously never had a single crash or freeze before Lion, and I've been using OS X for a good 7 years or more. Since installing Lion, I've had frequent lockups with many so bad that I've had to force a shutdown countless times. As a whole, everything is obviously much slower and/or crippled with worthless glitter thrown on top.
One of their main selling points in Lion was trackpad gestures, which are definitely great on their laptops, but completely worthless when you want to use a decent mouse with your desktop. Thankfully I kept Snow Leopard on my iMac and it's my main work machine.
You're not alone in your frustration.
However, I find "Mission Control" to be perfectly usable. The name is a little dumb, but it's basically just expose with multiple desktop switching added in. What's the "all flash" part you are talking about?
* You can't drag a window from one monitor to another using Mission Control, even though it will highlight the space you're trying to drop on.
* You can't move Space 1 to another spot or remove it, for no particular reason.
* When activating mission control from a fullscreen app, it shows the windows from Space 1, yet you have to swipe left to go to Space 2.
* It forces you to have different backgrounds per space/monitor, even if you don't want to. Changing your background globally is a huge pain.
Additionally, Mission Control is simply much more laggy-feeling. I could easily switch between apps and spaces with no hesitation in Snow Leopard. In Lion, for whatever reason, it was that decided it was important to eliminate this in order to do a fancy slide effect. Lion also gives you the ability to set a unique wallpaper for each desktop, which is nice for some people, but it forces my computer to refresh the items on my desktop each time I scroll into another space.
I just wish they'd done it from the beginning.
It's only terrible because Apple forced all users to their Revision A software. Axing MobileMe and iOS development tools before Mountain Lion cleaned the mess up wasn't a nice move.
I don't understand the desired behavior in Lion at all, though. They took away all-windows Expose (I used to have one corner dedicated to all-windows and another to application-windows) and turned Spaces into this weird hybrid thing with a useless-to-me Full Screen mode... Fortunately, my personal laptop is still on Snow Leopard, and my work machine is used with a couple 24" monitors hanging off of it, so I haven't yet had to use the new way of doing things... But with the recent OS X trends I'm not sure my next laptop will be another Mac.
I keep a lot of apps open at the same time, and I like to keep each one on it's own desktop with a couple minor exceptions.
I don't like the All-In-One version of xcode... not friendly with a small screen at all. Xcode 3, I would keep the doc window on it's own desktop, Interface Builder on it's own, etc... xcode 4 I lost that ability.
I use "fullscreen" mode occasionally; when I do it's usually a web browser or a terminal window. I'd use it more but even in fullscreen mode, I still want to be able to open a terminal window and keep it on top of the fullscreen app. Like for copying an example from the web.
It's too frustrating to do that if I am having to swipe back and forth between desktops...
I should also add that Lion does not manage memory well. Opening a new tab in Chrome is a beachball party waiting to happen.
Before that it said "10 seconds" for ~20 minutes and "1 minute" for ~30 minutes.
It was copying... the speed/time calculation just clearly didn't take into account copying lots of small files (<=1KB) is a very different scenario to 1 big file. Let alone it just shouldn't be that slow...
Don't even start me on xcode.... the day it stops resurrecting 2 year old provisioning profiles and refusing to compile "Release" code (until I close project/close xcode/reboot/reopen xcode/delete file from keychain/close xcode/reopen xcode/delete file from keychain/reopen project) because it's summoned them from the dead/ether, is the day I'm a happy man again...
So you are new to this "computer use" thing?
Because shit like that happens _all_ the time, in all OSes, from OS X to Windows to Linux, to NetBSD, to Haiku, to whatever.
It can even have 20 different explanations, besides the OS. "Doing a directory copy to the office NAS". Maybe the network configuration? Maybe the NAS?
For major issues and bugs I can understand the complaints --like the buggy XCode.
But do people (and hackers much more), think it means something to have tiny complains about some one-off annoyance that who knows why and how it happened?
The reasons I use Mac (and lots of people too perhaps) is not because they don't have problems, but because:
1) It doesn't annoy me with 200 popups, update this, approve that, USB connected, etc.
2) It doesn't require me to run a performance hogging antivirus (I know the arguments: Macs can get a virus just as well as, etc. Until that _actually_ happens as often as it did in Windows circa 2000, instead of mere lame trojans that I have to work to install I won't bother. Do people run antiviruses on Linux?).
3) It doesn't come with horrible, horrible, horrible, OEM software.
4) It doesn't look like it was designed by a 17 year old Star Trek fan geek with no design sense (Metro is better of course).
5) It doesn't have 20 year old widgets that still haunt users today. If you ever run some apps with statically linked (I guess) Windows 98 looking "save file" dialogs and such, you know what I mean.
6) It has a UNIX underneath, and I'm a CS (and Linux user for work).
7) It can run professional, top of the line, multimedia apps (which I uses professionally and as a hobby) whereas Linux can't: Creative Suite, Final Cut Pro, Logic, Cubase, Waves, Komplete, et al.
8) 95% of the stuff "just works" without fiddling. Never happened to me on Windows or on Linux (starting from RedHat Linux 5 --circa 1998-- to Ubuntu 12.04).
As far as software, as someone who supports Windows 7 on a daily basis: I have never spent more than 5 minutes on network printing with Macs. I have rarely spent less than three hours on network printing with Windows. Let's talk about the fact that it's 2012 and when I right-click a printer, I get to choose "printing preferences," "printer properties," and "properties." It may seem silly, but this stuff matters. You shouldn't have to hire the neighbor kid just to use your printer.
Additionally, manufacturers override Microsoft's decent (if clunky) WiFi interface and force you to use poorly designed taskbar-based apps, to the point where smart but non-tech-savvy people can't figure out how to connect to the Internet at a coffee shop. It's often impossible to avoid the concept of "location profiles," "networks" (Home? Business? Work? What the hell gives you the right to open a dialog over my work just because I plugged in an ethernet cable?). On my Mac I go to the Airport dropdown next to the volume control, pick from the available SSIDs, and it's done. Ethernet silently gets DHCP and connects. Details are there if I want them in ipconfig and System Preferences, but I hardly ever do. There certainly isn't crap in my taskbar running stupid 3fps animations and demanding my attention every few minutes. I have never been startled by the audio "Virus database has been updated" coming out of nowhere on a Mac, but this was a daily occurrence for Avast users.
How about "Windows is checking for a solution to the problem"? How about UAC dialogs that silently open behind my current window, so my Install Wizard appears to hang when it's actually just waiting for me to click ok?
Full screen is not basically like Maximize; Maximize is basically like Maximize. Full screen hides the chrome. I would compare it to F11 in Firefox. You don't have to use it; I do appreciate having Spotify and Mail full screen on alterate Spaces, so I can three-finger swipe to quickly read an email or change the song and then three-finger swipe back without altering my primary workpace, but I almost never fullscreen Chrome.
There are things I don't like. I hate that OSX reopens all my windows after I log back in; I don't use Xcode but I understand it's pretty buggy. Still, reports of Lion's transformation to iOS are vastly overblown.
Applause! You brought a tear to my eye. After living a luxuriant Apple-only lifestyle I've had to start supporting PCs again. Re-entering the Junkspace that is Windows has been punishing.
UI completely untouched since 1995. Thickets of new dialog boxes. Incredibly thick layers of shovelware. Grotesque artwork. Limitations that come out of nowhere that require Windows Pro Premium Whatever. IE toolbar/BHO hell. The printer thing alone, sweet Jesus. I literally gave up trying to share a single USB printer to two other workstations over the LAN. It's so unnecessarily difficult it's unreal.
The Mac-o-verse has the same volume of pain, punishment, and failure as the Windows platform, but it usually tends to cluster on the outside of the possibility space. Their failings aren't sitting there in plain view waiting for you to stub your toe.
I've been consistently disappointed with pretty much every major windows OEM HW maker (with the exception of Lenovo where I just don't like their look and feel). There is something to be said about making people feel good about the HW they're using. Heck, my 2006 white macbook works like a champ and still serves all of the wife's needs (I offered to get her a MBA but she is happy with what she has).
That part is so true. Running Win7 on my MBA '11 has been the best laptop I've ever had by a large margin. I should say I was routinely buying $2K Windows laptops, not cheap junk, but junk none the less. Hopefully PC makers are serious about stepping up their game.
The only Windows users I need to support are me and my wife with only the newest peripherals, so my experience hasn't been the same. The manner in which the UAC pops up has gotten me a few time though!
In the first few monthds i almost did 3, but then 1+2 and i love it since
And i'm not saying that fullscreen is broken by design here, it is.
Even in the bad old days of Microsoft MVPs you didn't get answers as hostile as that. This is almost religious fervor. WTF?
Yes, it's a bug. No, it's not a show stopper, and yes there is a perfectly reasonable work around. So the blind people are those who try to blow this up into some kind of crime against humanity and who then call those telling them to get a grip, "fanboys".
"Full screening" existed before Lion. It worked fine. You could for example run Quicktime or iTunes full-screend in one monitor and do work on another. Then, in Lion, solely to be able to market it as a new feature, they tweaked it to conflate full-screening with spaces and broke the feature for many people that had been happily using it for over 5 years. They could have just added the existing full-screen behavior to the iLife and iWork apps and things would have been fine. They didn't. It is clear that Apple knew they were going to break this feature for people, and did it anyways. (For example Quicktime used to have an option in preferences whether to black out the other screen or leave it usable, this preference was removed in Lion -- someone literally went in and deleted functioning and better code -- this was not some "whoops" mistake).
On top of this, what is particularly infuriating about this is that it hurts the people that have invested heavily into Apple by purchasing more than one monitor, many times expensive Apple monitors. It is completely acceptable and expected for people to get angry about regressing their monitors' abilities. Maybe its not a show-stopper for you, but for people who have spent a lot of money purchasing monitors, and had an existing workflow that functioned for YEARS, to all of a sudden lose it to a paid upgrade is 100% what I would call a show-stopper. Especially because it has been a year now and it is clear Apple just doesn't care about this.
"Well Apple is just more focused on the single screen experience now and you're just not important anymore". Bullshit. They repeatedly advertise, and continue to advertise the expanded capabilities of, multiple monitors: http://www.apple.com/displays/. The Air + Secondary Display is widely used, and most the laptops now support more than one external monitor. Thunderbolt even added daisy-chaining of monitors. This adds to the absurdity and schizophrenic nature of the issue: many pros use multiple monitor setups, and yet Apple went into the pro apps and degraded them to now only work with one monitor in full screen mode.
Of course, this shouldn't be surprising, its really a microcosm of the entire Lion release: very little to no new functionality and instead unneeded "tweaking" of existing behavior. We paid to have our scrollbars made to look like iOS and have everyone learn to "reverse" their scrolling, for Safari to perform the worst its ever performed (I don't think I know anyone who uses it anymore), and to have full screen broken.
1) Use Core Graphics to capture the display,
2) Manipulate window properties to get the result you want, or
3) Send the toggleFullscreen message to a window (10.6+ only).
Let's ignore option #1. It's primarily useful when you need to change the screen resolution without affecting other applications.
You say that the feature was deleted from Quicktime, but that's not what happened. Quicktime 7 and Quicktime X have different code bases. Quicktime 7's fullscreen functionality predate the current fullscreen API, and so there's a chunk of code in the Quicktime 7 player itself to futz around with window levels, types, desktop modes, and animate the whole thing. The Quicktime X application uses a different framework for video AND a different framework for the GUI, I doubt that you could bring much code from Quicktime 7 to Quicktime X.
Quicktime 7 used the old Quicktime library with Carbon. (So the API it was using to go fullscreen is even deprecated!)
Quicktime X uses the new Quicktime framework with Cocoa.
I myself have implemented the "nice" fullscreen technique, it requires some extra code but allows you to decide whether to allow other applications above yours.
No, it's not a bug. A bug would be something not working as intended. This clearly works just as intended, since some fullscreen apps apparently can use the extra monitor for secondary windows. It just isn't a very good feature if you have multiple monitors.
Personally, I'd love it to work on my dual monitors.
It's not a bug, it's a missing feature.
Full screen mode lets a single app use all your screen area. That is the feature. That you wish it to work differently does not make it a bug.
It's just a sucky solution for multi monitor setups.
I always see such complaints not as "wow, OS X is completely unusable" but as "wow, OS X is not better than (Windows|Linux)". It's no crime against humanity to make a mediocre operating system--just don't go around claiming that it is by far the best!
> something Windows does without any issues whatsoever
That is not entirely true, depending how the fullscreened application is coded interacting with the other one may e.g. make the windows toolbar reappear, or (very common for games) minimize the fullscreen application.
I'm not even a Mac user but I would take a consistent but irritating behavior over an inconsistent and also irritating behavior. It's more inconvenient to have to disable my second monitor while I'm playing a game.
My experience with the Mac is that apps for it are more often geared to work in not-full-screen windows; my personal hypothesis (with absolutely no documentation or backing) is that more Windows apps are most comfortable to use when maximized (and thus many new-from-Windows users look for a maximization button) because of MS-DOS' full-screen ancestry. In support of this unsupported theory: many more Mac apps seem to look silly when resized to unexpectedly large dimensions than do Windows apps.
Full-screen apps in Lion are a bit of a different thing because they exist in a conceptually separate place from "maximized" windows — they are to the side of the desktop, not on top of it.
On the Mac you can run multiple windows and have them all maximised to take up the maximum amount of screen real estate + applicable chrome.
Some apps like VLC have supported full screen for years, even before this feature was brought to Mac OS X itself.
So I wouldn't say that Windows has something akin to what is available to on Mac OS X.
And this still lets you use all of your screens. It's great.
But KDE? Not so much. It's designed to be elegant and easy to use, and I think it's fairly successful. It's actually rather easy to go from Windows to KDE--even easier than Windows to OS X, I think. (Admittedly, this is in large part because KDE is similar to Windows in a lot of ways.)
Also, full screen isn't a confusing feature :P. And, of course, Apple is just as happy to confuse people as anybody else--it seems half their users are vague on what exactly the green button does!
Um, sure you did (probably still do, I just don't move in those circles any more). I've seen IT managers have visceral reactions against the mere suggestion that Macs might do a better job of anything than Windows.
However, it is stupid that apple make some fairly basic design mistakes in the GUI experience when they focus so well on the physical aspects of their devices, but then again, none of the major players has done GUI really well yet, especially when compared with some of the best output of the computer games industry.
But that support is still garbage. Slightly less than Lion's, but still: "multi-monitor fullscreen support" only means that applications will go fullscreen on the (physical) screen they are currently on rather than move to the primary screen (which for a laptop is the "internal" one, making your 27" Cinema Display a very nice mirror and not much else) as is the behavior in Lion.
Fullscreen Mode will still only allow you to use a single physical screen.
Oh, the humanity! How about using NON fullscreen mode then? Like, say, _maximize_?
Complaining about the full screen feature "being broken in multi screen mode", when other platforms don't even offer it in a single screen?
> when other platforms don't even offer it in a single screen?
They do though, and they do it well, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Do I trust people to keep their words? Not immediately - first we try, then we trust.
The other one that makes me want to punch things is "why would you ever need to do that?"
Some people really need to stop making excuses for the limitations of their favorite platform. Stop having a favorite platform, for fuck's sake.
The guy I'm talking about will argue with you (and get very pissed off) if you ever criticize anything made by Apple. "Hey, I think feature X on device Y works better than the iOS/OS X equivalent" will get you a 2 hour discussion on why Apple's version is better and, if it isn't, it shouldn't be and the other version is flawed because it does more than it should do.
Whatever marketing Apple is doing, they are certainly doing a great job at making users (well, at least some of them) identify with the brand.
Except that the green button DOES NOT MAXIMIZE. And never really has. Window management in OSX has always been a complete joke, and it continues to be so. Now pressing the green button in chrome resizes to small and "current" sizes, not "full screen."
It definitely isn't fine when your goal is to maximize content visibility and remove as much chrome as possible, which is the reason you'd put a video player, image reader or web browser in full-screen.
> Except that the green button DOES NOT MAXIMIZE.
The purported role of the zoom button is to fit the window to the content, but shift-clicking it should maximize. It does so in all the applications I use except (strangely enough) Cocoa Emacs.
But that is not fine because it leaves all the chrome around, where the point of full-screen modes is to remove that and potentially re-layout the display to make better use of the now chrome-less canvas.
Now that I've got it working, though, I have to say that there's something almost liberating about being able to make the window take up the whole screen, without having to dick about any more. Every time I do it, I get a slight frisson, imagining myself sticking 2 fingers up at an oncoming army full of tutting, hissing, ponytailed-and-bearded turtlenecked Apple fanboys, all crying out for my head, "Burn the Windows-loving witch!" Well, dear fanboys, screw the lot of you, and dear OS X, screw you too, and that goes for Safari and iTunes as well. Hey, Safari, I just took your window AND MADE IT TAKE UP THE WHOLE GODDAMN SCREEN... and I don't give a fuck how big you thought I needed to have it.
Considering what the Apple brand is supposed to connote, or at least what I thought it was supposed to connote, I find this kind of ironic.
Some apps, like Mail or Spotify (for example), do actually go full screen when I click the green button to maximize. Other apps, like you mentioning Chrome, don't. This makes me believe it has to do with how the app is coded, not a OSX problem.
If everyone started out on OS X and then went to Windows, people would be whining that the middle button takes up the entire screen when they don't want it to.
It's a zoom button, not maximize. If you simply Shift-Click you will get the expected effect. There are half a dozen tools that will change the default behavior if you require it.
As for Shift-Click I tried it with Chrome and I thought you had made my day. However it didn't do anything different on Messages, nor Safari: it just stretched the window vertically. In my short survey of currently open apps, half were stretching vertically while the other was doing fullscreen. (be it Shift-click or plain click) Only Chrome acts differently.
The biggest problem with that is that developers make it work inconsistently.
If by "developers" you mean "Apple" then yes. I never use the "zoom" button because it exhibits apparently random behaviour.
I personally can't come up with a good reason not to just remove the green ball entirely.
Apple should remove the zoom button. It’s not necessary, more confusing than anything.
Wrong. They're from people who think every window manager should act consistently. This is decades of UI design and expected behavior being flushed down the toilet by a company for which NIH is religious dogma.
That Windows behaves the correct, expected way is an indictment on OS X, not its growing base of increasingly frustrated power users.
I don't see how that couldn't be turned entirely on its head? Windows is clearly the one ignoring the decades of UI design and expected behaviour from Apple, as from checking from screenshots, has been since at least System 3 — predating Windows 3.1. ;-)
Though, I agree that Apple seem intent in ridding themselves of powerusers and developers, which seems like a somewhat perverse set of incentives.
I still stick to my guns: the default behavior is insane. Focusing on one task (ie: one screen, window, app etc) at a time is the common use case, when I want to show two screens at once it's the exception. Current behavior is based on a philosophical concept of carrying through the "desktop" metaphor, and SJ's obsession with showing off his stacked windows, which mac was first to have, rather than on how humans actually want to use computers.
The problem is with the full-screen behavior introduced in Lion. And it does suck, but I personally it very low on the list of annoyances.
I have used 4x simultaneous monitors on my MBP for years, and it's still more comfortable overall than Windows7 (YMMV - Win7's experience varies greatly on your drivers/hardware).
Apple has always had issues with window-management, it's one of those things like lock-screen that Windows still does better in some ways.
What do you use for that?
I run two older versions of this evga product (as my monitors are older - 1650x1080).
Right? Unless I'm missing something, my friends and I all use a hot corner to activate the Screen Off to be able to lock our screens when we leave our laptops since there is no Win+L or Lock equivalent. :/ I guess they just expect me to close it everytime I leave? I have lots of long running stuff that I normally don't want to stop just because I want to go to the kitchen or bathroom.
My major issue is that sometimes it showed content before screen is unlocked (likely my displaylink device) or fails to unlock (sleep/unsleep resolves this)
Though what really pisses me off about Mountain Lion multiple monitor is they removed the "Detect Displays" menubar option. Just gone. So now I'm reduced to unplugging and replugging my thunderbolt 27inch display when I connect it to my laptop. F'ing asinine
The problem is unlike scroll bars you can't have a setting to disable it, because that would mean the app had to retroactively allow itself to run in a single window full screen mode which might be considered unpredictable behavior, something they don't like.
So to give them some benefit of doubt I see where they're coming from.
From personal experience, I suspect this feature is intended to make Spaces more accessible to novice users on laptops without external monitors, a common case. I never got the hang of Spaces originally, but once I started using full-screen mode while portable, my laptop got immensely more useful. For me, this was a gateway into the rest of Spaces, and now I maintain 3 desktop spaces and 1 full-screen app, and switch between them and Mission Control with trackpad gestures. Heck, I might even start using Dashboard, since it's sitting right there. (Ok, probably not.) It's a gradual introduction to an advanced feature.
Apple routinely cuts off its long tail as a streamlining measure, sometimes for UX reasons, sometimes for engineering reasons. They shouldn't always get away with it. At least in this case the intent seems reasonable, even if the side effect isn't.
The worst part of Lion's featured 'fullscreen mode' is that software, that worked fine in fullscreen before, now uses Lion's fullscreen. This doesn't happen on Snow Leopard.
Compiler toolchain and other stuff is available via older xcode or gcc-osx-installer project, though.
I don't think a special API is required, just knowledge of the second screen and then placing windows on that second or third screen.
But still, you can't have one app fullscreen on one monitor and another app in the other.
Nobody was clamoring for the iOS experience on the desktop. It's horrible. Get rid of it.
And apparently people were clamouring for it, just you weren't.
The bigger problem is how it is not possible to drag a window from a "space" on one display, to a "space" in another display when viewing Mission Control. There is no conceivable reason they don't allow this. It worked just fine in Spaces. It has nothing to do with full screen mode. I just don't get it.
Regardless, my point is that a lot of people have been using the full-screen feature as a substitute for full-maximize. I'll gladly sacrifice a quarter inch of screen real-estate to be able to use my external display simultaneously. I actually NEED that menu bar most of the time, anyway.
 I say "mostly" because it just maximizes the window and doesn't put the app into Apple's Fullscreen API mode.
Time for a new operating system.
WHO IS WITH ME!? ;)
Sure, multi monitors is fine, but the Spaces and Mission Control UX never scaled well when you added another monitor (IMO). Full screen behaviour just adds to it. It seems to me that >1 monitors are not how Apple envisions their computer configs.
I still think Apple should change it though.
I don't use spaces.
Does using a usb powered/driven screen have the same problem? (as they tend to use their own driver IME). I know they are slower to update, but for monitoring use should be fine.
Spaces, aka. Mission Control, aka. "whateverthehellthey'recallingitthisweek", is meant to multimonitor set-ups with a bunch of apps in preset places. Use spaces/missioncontrol.
Personally, I don't get full-screen apps at all and wish this feature would die a painful and horrible death. I'd love to see stats on its use, as I've never seen anyone who actually knows what its cryptic icon represents.
But it is total garbage on a large screen, so I don't use it when docked.
My common use case is opening text editor in fullscreen on main display and terminal with tests and tail -f log on the secondary one. Using Lion's fullscreen mode could help me get some extra screen estate for the editor, were it done right.
Also, why force turning off the displays? After all, one can press the power button or dim it using brightness settings, if the need arises.
I never use it on my 13" MBP, whether it's just the laptop or if I have it set up with an external 24" as a second monitor.
On my 27" iMac the only time I have a window maximized is when I have iPhoto open. However, the window is maximized, I'm not in fullscreen mode.