<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mac OS X 10.5: Spaces is both buggy and flawed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.betalogue.com/2007/11/13/mac-os-x-105-spaces-is-both-buggy-and-flawed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.betalogue.com/2007/11/13/mac-os-x-105-spaces-is-both-buggy-and-flawed/</link>
	<description>Notes from an unfinished world…</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:29:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pierre Igot</title>
		<link>http://www.betalogue.com/2007/11/13/mac-os-x-105-spaces-is-both-buggy-and-flawed/comment-page-1/#comment-7591</link>
		<dc:creator>Pierre Igot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:32:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.betalogue.com/2007/11/13/mac-os-x-105-spaces-is-both-buggy-and-flawed/#comment-7591</guid>
		<description>Alan: Once they fix the obvious bugs, I will definitely give Spaces another proper run as a tool in my work. I agree that some aspects of it are well done—on my 30&quot; + 23&quot; dual-monitor setup, the ability to drag windows from space to space and overall slickness are pretty impressive.

But the fact remains that I don&#039;t see how the feature can overcome the fundamental obstacle of being based on an application-centric OS. It might still become a useful addition to my palette of tools, but it certainly will never be able to fully realize the dream of a document-centric or task-centric work environment. And I am also not really sure that only 10% of common user needs require such an environment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alan: Once they fix the obvious bugs, I will definitely give Spaces another proper run as a tool in my work. I agree that some aspects of it are well done—on my 30&#8243; + 23&#8243; dual-monitor setup, the ability to drag windows from space to space and overall slickness are pretty impressive.</p>
<p>But the fact remains that I don&#8217;t see how the feature can overcome the fundamental obstacle of being based on an application-centric OS. It might still become a useful addition to my palette of tools, but it certainly will never be able to fully realize the dream of a document-centric or task-centric work environment. And I am also not really sure that only 10% of common user needs require such an environment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlanY</title>
		<link>http://www.betalogue.com/2007/11/13/mac-os-x-105-spaces-is-both-buggy-and-flawed/comment-page-1/#comment-7584</link>
		<dc:creator>AlanY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:40:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.betalogue.com/2007/11/13/mac-os-x-105-spaces-is-both-buggy-and-flawed/#comment-7584</guid>
		<description>I see your points, but overall I&#039;ve been very impressed with Spaces.

The first blog post you link to is kind of silly in my view... he says Spaces is &quot;broken&quot; because Apple-Tab only switches to a single Space.  Of course it does, because Apple-Tab is an application switcher, not a document switcher!  What he&#039;s really complaining about is the design of Apple-Tab, not the design of Spaces.  Spaces is only incidental to his rant.  There is some merit to the argument that Apple-Tab should be a window or document switcher (and I would agree), but since this functionality is provided by good, mature third-party apps (e.g. Peter Maurer&#039;s &quot;Witch&quot;) if one wants it, his complaint is pretty trivial in my view.

Overall, Spaces is the first virtual desktop application I&#039;ve enjoyed using.  I&#039;ve tried Virtua Desktops, the Windows PowerToy, and various Unix tools, and most of them were just not well enough integrated for me to use on a regular basis.  On the other hand, I&#039;ve been using Spaces consistently since getting Leopard.  The zoom in/zoom out metaphor is perfect, being able to drag windows from one space to another is great (yes, many Unix pagers have this, but only in a kind of iconic, small representation, and not live... you can&#039;t zoom out and watch video playing in another space for instance), and I love how if you grab a window you can push it to another space by moving to a screen edge without having to invoke Spaces at all.  I also appreciate the speed.  Even on my Macbook with integrated graphics, it&#039;s *very* fast... I appreciate that they didn&#039;t take the Virtua desktops approach and add eye-candy like spinning cubes which add latency.

I suspect there will be third party solutions to spreading collections of windows across multiple spaces on application startup.  The only applications where this is a big need for me are my web browsers and OmniOutliner, and if you think about the interface requirements for this, it would be a fairly baroque feature to add to the base operating system.  As usual, I think Apple&#039;s implementation absolutely nails 90% of common users needs, and does so in a very polished way, leaving the additional bits to third parties.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see your points, but overall I&#8217;ve been very impressed with Spaces.</p>
<p>The first blog post you link to is kind of silly in my view&#8230; he says Spaces is &#8220;broken&#8221; because Apple-Tab only switches to a single Space.  Of course it does, because Apple-Tab is an application switcher, not a document switcher!  What he&#8217;s really complaining about is the design of Apple-Tab, not the design of Spaces.  Spaces is only incidental to his rant.  There is some merit to the argument that Apple-Tab should be a window or document switcher (and I would agree), but since this functionality is provided by good, mature third-party apps (e.g. Peter Maurer&#8217;s &#8220;Witch&#8221;) if one wants it, his complaint is pretty trivial in my view.</p>
<p>Overall, Spaces is the first virtual desktop application I&#8217;ve enjoyed using.  I&#8217;ve tried Virtua Desktops, the Windows PowerToy, and various Unix tools, and most of them were just not well enough integrated for me to use on a regular basis.  On the other hand, I&#8217;ve been using Spaces consistently since getting Leopard.  The zoom in/zoom out metaphor is perfect, being able to drag windows from one space to another is great (yes, many Unix pagers have this, but only in a kind of iconic, small representation, and not live&#8230; you can&#8217;t zoom out and watch video playing in another space for instance), and I love how if you grab a window you can push it to another space by moving to a screen edge without having to invoke Spaces at all.  I also appreciate the speed.  Even on my Macbook with integrated graphics, it&#8217;s *very* fast&#8230; I appreciate that they didn&#8217;t take the Virtua desktops approach and add eye-candy like spinning cubes which add latency.</p>
<p>I suspect there will be third party solutions to spreading collections of windows across multiple spaces on application startup.  The only applications where this is a big need for me are my web browsers and OmniOutliner, and if you think about the interface requirements for this, it would be a fairly baroque feature to add to the base operating system.  As usual, I think Apple&#8217;s implementation absolutely nails 90% of common users needs, and does so in a very polished way, leaving the additional bits to third parties.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

