David Risley is the founder of PCMech.com. He is the brains, the thinker, the writer, the nerd.I have completed my hardware upgrades to the new Mac Pro. The system is now sporting 5 GB of memory as well as a second video card. That second video card now gives me the ability to expand beyond two monitors. Since I had plenty of LCDs sitting around, I decided to put them to use. I now have FOUR monitors attached to my Mac Pro.
Why? Because I can.
But, now that I am doing it, is it all roses? No. So, which operating system is better in this department? Windows XP or Mac OS X?
Fitts’s Law
One of the things that constantly strikes me about this issue is how both camps have such rock solid opinions. Well, truth be told, it seems it is the OS X users who get the most defensive about it. Apple is, of course, thought to be the king of interface design. In most areas, I would agree. When it comes to multi-screen support, I disagree.
Fitts’s Law is often quoted. Wikipedia defines it as:
Fitts’s law (often cited as Fitts’ law) is a model of human movement which predicts the time required to rapidly move to a target area, as a function of the distance to the target and the size of the target.
It has an equation and everything. More simply stated, the idea is that the larger the target, the easier it is to use. So, the idea with the top menu bar in OS X is that it covers the entire top of the screen. The mouse cursor cannot move beyond it. This means that any flick of the mouse upward will hit the menu. Very large target.
Beyond Fitts’s Law
OK, Fitts’s law is a workable model. But, how does this translate into real-world use? That’s where I fail to see the point of it in the design of OS X. Let’s look at REAL WORLD use of multiple screens in both operating systems.
In Windows XP, multiple screens is easy. You install the video cards, install the drivers, and then all the screens will appear in your Display Properties. You can move them around in relation to one another, etc. When you operate an application on a particular screen, the menu bar goes with the program. So, no matter where the application is, the menu bar is within a short distance of your workspace.
Now, let’s take OS X. Driver installation is a non-issue because Apple so tightly controls the hardware. It does properly detect all screens. It doesn’t always detect the proper native resolution for the monitor, but that is an easy thing to correct. Changing arrangement and settings of multiple screens is really easy with OS X. You can give each screen it’s own background (harder to do that in Windows). Visually, the interface for managing multiple monitors in OS X is solid.
Practically, though, it is a nightmare. And that is due to the simple fact that the top menu bar is tied to one screen. Sure, you can easily choose which of your screens is primary (and hence which displays the menu and the Dock), but it does not move. That top menu bar is used for every application. All of Apple’s GUI design genius looks really stupid when they can’t think of something better than this.
So, I have four screens attached to the Mac Pro. If I am working with an application on the far screen, I have to scroll over TWO SCREENS to get to the menu bar for the program I am working with. I cannot barely put into words just how frickin’ idiotic that is. Here is a picture from my office to demonstrate:
The Verdict
OS X multiple monitor support is strong. I actually like the way it handles it better than in Windows XP. But, practically, it loses BIG TIME to Windows XP. Windows is so much better than OS X when it comes to ease of use in a multiple monitor environment.
To get around this, Apple needs to do one of the following:
- Make the menu bar follow the active application.
- Give an option to the user to embed the application menus inside the program menus.
#2 might be harder to implement because it could involve the cooperation of the developers of all applications for OS X. The top menu bar has been a staple of OS X for awhile now and it is hard to change. I understand that. But, #1 should be easier to implement. Until Apple does something to make this easier, I guess they’ll just have to continue to condition Mac lovers why this idiocy actually makes sense (some think so).
Until Apple grows a brain on this issue, leave it to a third party utility to help make things a little easier. The utility is called DejaMenu. It will allow you to set up a key combination that will duplicate the top menu bar in contextual style. So, if I am working with that application in that far left monitor, I can hit that key combination and I get the entire contents of my top menu bar (which is TWO SCREENS away, mind you) right at my current cursor position. Not as easy as Windows XP, but this makes it much easier.
So, in this match of Windows versus OS X, Windows wipes the floor with OS X and then spits on it. OS X is just plain harder to use when you have more than one monitor. And it is disappointing that users like myself have to outsmart the stupid design by using third-party add-ons, becoming kings of keyboard shortcuts, or speeding the mouse cursor up to light speed to flip across several screens.
This should be easier, Apple. There is so much smart design in OS X. Why not this?
Subscribe To the PCMech Feed for more interesting posts and exclusive feed-only freebies. Our weekly newsletter will keep you up to date each week.
Rich Menga, a native New Englander residing in Tampa Bay Florida, 
11/1/2007 10:34 pm
Glad you found DejaMenu useful. I’ve used two-monitor setups on Macs for graphic arts work many times. Layout, photo, or other artwork on one monitor, all those tool palettes and the menus on the other. Works great. I’ve never imagined a real use for more than two monitors, and Apple’s core professional audience have always been multi-monitor users in graphic arts, video and photo editing, music recording, scientific data acquisition and modeling and the like. (Twenty years of bulletproof m.m. support attracted many of these people in the first place.) I’ll grant that with four of the things a single menu bar has its shortcomings but keep in mind that even two monitors represents a fraction of a percent of users of any platform.
[Reply]
11/2/2007 8:17 am
good points, although the distance between those monitors in the picture is a little absurd, youre going to have to move your chair for that, not just the mouse
i believe apple’s stance on this is that they’d rather you use one massive 30″ cinema display than two 15 inchers, and that the majority of users with more than one monitor consciously or subconsciously use one as a primary, whether theyre in windows or os x. in my own work experience, and as Bill noted, most people set up a second monitor for email, tool palettes, etc. all secondary uses. most work actually gets done in a single frame. case in point, as i type this, im looking at just one of the three monitors i have going.
also use Spaces of course.
[Reply]
11/2/2007 2:39 pm
I’ve pent the last few weeks working all day on an XP system (I’ve used Win off and on since 3.1 and even admined a WfW network for a while) and I have to admit that extra monitors are much more useful there, but I don’t necessarily mean that as a compliment and it has nothing to do with the menus per se. It’s the application container windows–they really *need* to be full screen in order to work with documents effectively. If I shrink the app window to see around it I effectively reduce the screen size for any docs associated with it. Minimized docs are contained in there too, so if I want to retrieve a minimized Photoshop doc I have to first get the PS app window back and then hunt for the desired doc inside it. Dragging content between docs from different apps is such a pain it isn’t worth it. Etc., etc. At that rate a screen per major app starts looking real good.
It’s the document-centric thing again. With a Mac I just click whatever doc I want and the relevant menus etc. are shown. Drag content directly between doc windows and the desktop, shuffle them around freely, they all minimize to the same place, exposé will quickly let me find something, etc. Like papers on a desk. Windows constantly makes me divert my thought process from the task at hand to ask “what does the system need from me so I can get to my stuff?” Every task begins with considering which application is called for and switching between them like rigid modes, either because of the container window or because file and data types aren’t recognized very reliably, forcing me to use the “File Open” dialogs far more often and other similar considerations. On a Mac I sometimes absent-mindedly forget which app I’m using for a moment because I just clicked the doc I wanted and started working on it. Multiple monitors on a Mac just aren’t that useful because they aren’t that necessary and the single menubar is a big part of the reason why–in a good sense. A second display for a big page layout, video monitoring, an audio mixer or scientific data monitoring or other stuff is useful. More than that, not so much.
[Reply]
11/2/2007 3:17 pm
It is a matter of preference, really, and my view is that OS X should be designed to accommodate it. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask - especially since Windows does such a better job of it and Apple remains so snotty that Microsoft can’t figure things out.
It just seems to me that OS X’s design lends itself to ask the question on whether to have more than one screen. And, that should not be the case. I know I can use Spaces. I know I can spring for a 30″ monitor. But, my preference is to be able to see several apps at once, and not have to buy a 30″ monitor when I already have several laying around.
I fail to see how the document-centric approach, Fitts law, or whatever it is has any bearing on this very basic GUI design choice.
[Reply]
11/2/2007 4:04 pm
I’m not doggedly defending the Mac here, was speaking from what I believe to be Apple’s point of view as a total system maker — no they’re not known for creating things that work when cobbled together. If you’ve seen a friend want to replace the battery in an iPod, you’ll see it as either a symptom of a disease or a thing of beauty that there is no battery slot you can just pop off.
I spend more time in Windows anyway, though I do have a Mac as well, and I’m not particularly satisfied with how both OS X and Windows handle multiple monitors. In Windows XP there is still a primary monitor - the Start Menu/Quicklaunch stays on one monitor and the taskbar doesn’t handle items as intelligently as it could (again, an outside utility like Ultramon steps in). Haven’t worked long days in Vista yet so maybe they’ve done something there I’m not aware of.
[Reply]
11/2/2007 4:17 pm
The point is that all design is compromise and too many other virtues would have to be sacrificed for a very limited number of people in limited circumstances. The price of MDI is substantial loss of usability in other areas that would affect most users instead of a small few. And it isn’t something people feel needs to be “fixed” anyway. The tens of millions happily using it that way for twenty years suggests it isn’t “brain-dead.” It just assumes a different sort of organization consistent with the rest of the system’s design.
[Reply]
11/11/2007 10:22 pm
Using multiple monitors on my laptop (the laptop lcd and a hdtv), I’ve found it confusing and unintuitive. I am currently running VLC on my hdtv, and can’t leave the current space that i’m in on my primary monitor without losing the video.
I use spaces heavily, and think it would make a lot of sense to designate certain spaces for applications in the second monitor, allowing more control over multiple applications on multiple monitors.
[Reply]
11/12/2007 5:07 pm
I agree with the article. It’s dumb that I have to move to the other screen. It took me a while to get a Mac to work on again, because I prefer to work in OSX. Yet this multiple monitor baloney has me ready to switch back to Windows. OSX gets pretty much everything right but games! Why does this have to be this way?
I understand that maybe most people don’t need to go to the menu for half their apps as much as I do, but doggone it I should be able to have my apps open in whichever the heck screen I want, when I want! If Windows can make it work, then OSX ought to make it work even better. Just give me a second menu bar, for crying out loud!
Here’s what really gets me (and I simply MUST believe it’s a quirk on my system, I can’t believe Apple or Mozilla is this dumb): when I right-click in Firefox, the context menu appears on screen one.
[Reply]
11/13/2007 12:12 pm
I think that most of the ideas here are real but not realistic. I work on 2 monitors all day on my G5. Very rarely do I ever run into a sit where I wish I had more than 2 monitors. So the whole idea of 30″ displays is practical is you need that much space. I do not. I think until people come up with their own OS that handles EVERYTHING perfectly then you shouldn’t bash the so called “stupid designs”. Nothing is perfect, but it works better than most things.
This just sounds like a Mac bashing party on something that isnt even really practical for most uses, like the image that shows the monitors setup above, get real… lol
[Reply]
11/13/2007 12:23 pm
In fact, I have to agree with the article.
I use a MacPro with three 30″ ACDs.
My main screen is in the middle and the other ones left and right in a 45 degree angle.
Even though is kind of hard to access the the menu bar, I got used to use QuickSilver to do that. One key combination (option+space bar) to open apps and stuff and another key combination (command+space bar) to open the menu items. It’s even faster than going all the way up to me menu bar as I can write a few letters of what I want in the menu, quicsilver way.
So, accessibility depends on how you are using your Mac.
Also, in my secondary monitors, I always use apps that don’t require much intervention like monitors, graphs, downloading files, etc. Even if I am using a Virtual Machine, being it windowed or full screen, the content is all there.
Spaces is nice but I kind of like to see all the information I need at (almost) the same time. Spaces is just way too distracting for me (even though I use it very often too).
If you need help setting up QuickSilver to access your application menus, visit this page:
http://www.themerlinshow.com/ep/008-howto-quicksilver-application-menus
[Reply]
11/13/2007 1:01 pm
As a computer user since 1985 - I have used both Macs and PCs extensively. And the author raised some good points that got me thinking… And led me to DejaMenu which I setup to launch when I squeeze my mighty mouse (instead of the default expose).
I’ve often wished there was an option to mirror the menu bar on different screens because of the mouse moving issue - but I always knew for me there would be a better solution - I think dejamenu is it for me.
Looking through the comments, I Strongly agree with comment #3 - I am an interactive developer, and constantly have 10 or so programs open - but I never think in a program centric mindset, it is always document centric - I think this is the reason I always feel like I am going against the flow when trying to do my work in a PC - need to Maximize every window environment.
Deja menu is great for me, because I can just move across my 3 monitors to the docs I am working on, and squeeze my mouse to bring up the menu. It’s the simplest solution for me.
Thanks for raising some good design critique - I never would have found this otherwise!
[Reply]
11/13/2007 3:15 pm
There is one killer multi-monitor feature in XP with ATI/AMD drivers that may not be possible on MAC.
I use a PC for multitasking AND as an HTPC while working on the PC. An HDTV tuner card is used and main viewing is on a 1920×1200 LCD which provides near ideal quality viewing. But if I move my view to the PC monitor, I still want to see the video in a small window while working on other things.
With AMD “TheaterMode” settings, I get video in the player window on the PC monitor (non-full-screen) while the same video is shown full-screen on the HD monitor. In addition, the HD monitor is properly shown at 1920×1080 with small bars above and below.
Both video windows are fully de-interlaced at very high quality (perfect HQV scores for newer AMD cards).
Dual display is important here because as I shift focus between the two monitors, I get the exact user mode that is appropriate without changing any settings. When controlling the tuner, or file playback slider, I see video, instead of the black box that would normally appear on a dual video display where the controlling display has been set to secondary.
[Reply]
11/13/2007 6:42 pm
I experimented with dual monitors on both my PC and on my Mac for a while - thinking I’d be more productive with the extra screen space.
Honestly, after about 4 months with it, I ended up buying a single 24″ LCD for my Mac, and a single 24″ LCD for my Windows XP PC.
Multiple monitors isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, no matter HOW the applications handle them. For one thing, I like to play 3D games occasionally, and they still don’t allow spanning the view across 2 displays in any game I’ve tried, whether PC or Mac OS X. (Well, I think Microsoft Flight Simulator might be a rare exception that supports it, but that’s about it.)
Under OS X, the times I found a second display most useful were when using MIDI and music-related software, where you can drag over windows containing mixers, time-counters, waveform editors, or what-not to the second screen - freeing up the primary display to show all your recording tracks. In this scenario, having the application menu bar available on the secondary display is worthless.
No matter which OS I used, I’d also say that purely ergonomically-speaking, you don’t want to have one of your displays way off to the side. Instead, you can do 4 LCD flat panels in a 2×2 grid using one of the display stands designed for the purpose. Arranged in this manner, you won’t care so much about having to scroll WAY over to a menu bar and back. It all feels like it’s right in front of you instead.
[Reply]
11/13/2007 7:04 pm
I’d separate the general subject of multi-monitor support from the design choice of Menu Bar placement. Menu bar placement certainly affects the other. Just say menu bar placement sucks (I’m used to it) on the Mac and is worsened by multi monitor use.
But the big thing is: The low overall support for multi monitors on Windows sucks really badly compared to the Mac for one big reason: Losing Windows. It’s probably a combination of OS and Application developer issues, but I often lose a window in XP when changing monitor configurations.
Example: I use a laptop (closed) with 2 monitors connected. When I disconnect, often an application will be orphaned over on the now non existent monitor. Closing the app and relaunching sometimes brings the window back up in never never land again. Pretty stupid. Microsoft: Don’t ‘display’ a window where no monitor real estate exists!
I haven’t played with Vista enough to know if it’s any better.
[Reply]
12/30/2007 10:23 am
Agree and disagree. I have a triple-monitor setup on my Windows XP workstation (used for Photoshop), and dual monitors on my Power Mac G4.
1. In terms of setting up, OS X wins hands down. It automatically detects monitors without having to reboot — you can swap in a new one even while the OS is running. This is massively useful if you tend to move the CPU box around a lot.
In my case, for example, I have a 12-inch Powerbook. During the day it hooks up to a 22-inch LCD and external keyboard/mouse and ius used for office admin. At night it turns into a media centre when I plug it into my 40-inch LCD TV. All I have to do is put the Powerbook to sleep, unplug it from one site and then plug it into the other site and it automatically recognises the new setup.
2. In terms of usability, I agree Windows XP is better. The menu bar sticks to one monitor on the Mac, putting it away from the application when it’s being run on the secondary monitor.
This is not so bad IF the drive icons and dock were actually movable, so that you can keep the menu bar on the screen where you open apps the most, and have the drive icons and dock on another monitor to clear more space for the app.
What Apple needs to do is allow dynamic movement of the desktop icons. In Windows XP, you can select and move the desktop icons — including the trashcan and start bar — wherever you like. In Windows XP you are in control. With OS X you’re stuck with what Apple thinks you should have.
[Reply]
1/19/2008 6:56 am
roberto,
On a Mac you can put icons anywhere you want to, in the dock, in the menu bar, or make an alias of an original.
And who cares about the position of those items, trash, start etc?
On a Mac Pro do you know how to switch from a large TV 42″ back to the 22″ desktop monitor>? On the Pro there is a dual input jack card for the monitors.
How do you do it?
[Reply]