Poll: virtual desktops on W10

[Sean Nelson]

If you're running multiple Excel windows (files) in a single instance, they share a "computing engine". This is necessary, because Excel files opened in the same instance are treated as one workspace (you can create relations between them). This means that:
- if one window (file) is recalculating, it will halt all windows in this instance,
- if one window crashes during these calculations, it will almost surely take the whole instance with it.

When you run different instances, they are really separate.

Lockups and crashes are an Excel phenomenon, not necessarily a limitation of running a single instance of a program. Processes can spawn threads to execute tasks in parallel, and programs can be written to delegate crash-prone operations to subtasks which, if they fail, won't take down their siblings. You see this in modern browsers, for example.

And it's a little more subtle than "separate instances are really separate", because program code is read-only and Windows is clever about sharing it between different processes on the system. Two separate processes (what you're calling "instances") with their own virtual address spaces will actually map to the same program code pages. So you really only have one copy of the Excel code in memory, what's unique to each process is the stack, the data, and the CPU register set. So in terms of RAM usage there really isn't all that much difference between one process with multiple spreadsheets open and two separate processes, each with its own spreadsheet open.

 

[CAcreeks]

To me, it's a distinction without a difference. What I want is multiple windows, what I got is multiple windows. I don't really care if there are multiple copies of NotePad++ or even Excel running, I've got cores and RAM a-plenty and those programs are peanuts compared to some of the other stuff I run like Premiere Pro or DaVinci resolve. And my three monitors give me all the screen real estate I need without having to flip between sessions.

Well, if you don't understand and see the difference, you don't have to care. I never said this is important for everyone. I said it's good that MS does this by default when using different virtual desktops - because the user doesn't have to care about possible conflicts and side effects.

Well I, for one, do not like it.

MacOS switches desktop.s For example, if I have Firefox on Desktop 3 but on I'm in Desktop 2, when I click the Firefox icon in my dock, desktop changes and Firefox opens on Dekstop 3.

That makes a lot more sense to me. But of course Windows "tasks" are configurable to do what I want, which is good.

 

[R M S]

1st for generic tasks

2nd for CO1

3rd for PS

4th for QImage-One

 

[Carey Brown]

Not one of your options: yes I have heard of them but I don't use them because I use two monitors and that provides me with all the desktop space I need.

My 43" 4K monitor has plenty of desktop space, though I could see virtual screens being useful on my laptop.

 

[afterburn]

To me, it's a distinction without a difference. What I want is multiple windows, what I got is multiple windows. I don't really care if there are multiple copies of NotePad++ or even Excel running, I've got cores and RAM a-plenty and those programs are peanuts compared to some of the other stuff I run like Premiere Pro or DaVinci resolve. And my three monitors give me all the screen real estate I need without having to flip between sessions.

Well, if you don't understand and see the difference, you don't have to care. I never said this is important for everyone. I said it's good that MS does this by default when using different virtual desktops - because the user doesn't have to care about possible conflicts and side effects.

Well I, for one, do not like it.

MacOS switches desktop.s For example, if I have Firefox on Desktop 3 but on I'm in Desktop 2, when I click the Firefox icon in my dock, desktop changes and Firefox opens on Dekstop 3.

That makes a lot more sense to me. But of course Windows "tasks" are configurable to do what I want, which is good.

The biggest issue with windows is that it is not always clear or obvious which settings change what behavior. Like the settings I provided above, who thinks of that stuff. Basically you'll never figure it out unless you try or get explained what they do.

 

[Billiam29]

The biggest issue with windows is that it is not always clear or obvious which settings change what behavior. Like the settings I provided above, who thinks of that stuff. Basically you'll never figure it out unless you try or get explained what they do.

And let’s not forget that five and a half years after Windows 10’s release we still have settings scattered in two distinctly different locations.

 

[pkosewski]

MacOS switches desktop.s For example, if I have Firefox on Desktop 3 but on I'm in Desktop 2, when I click the Firefox icon in my dock, desktop changes and Firefox opens on Dekstop 3.

That makes a lot more sense to me. But of course Windows "tasks" are configurable to do what I want, which is good.

You can make Windows work the exact same way. You can set whether you want to see taskbar icons for apps that are anchored in current desktop or all of them. And when you choose the latter, clicking on an icon moves you to the right desktop (with a shifting animation so you actually know this is happening).

There's a similar choice for Alt+Tab - you can make it cycle through apps in current or all desktops.

Which means you can make it compatible with 2 different work styles: when you treat each desktop as a separate workspace (like I do) or when you just want to unclutter your monitor (what you prefer).

And this is something that I'm willing to praise, because I've used quite a lot of Linux DEs that were very limited in this aspect. Not sure how it works in MacOS - I've never used a Mac.

Of course I'm talking about possibilities that come out of the box. There are many apps for Windows (and way more on Linux) that overwrite this behaviour and let you do very serious customization (which, IMO, just makes Windows worse - but unique, if someone's into that).

 

[pkosewski]

And let’s not forget that five and a half years after Windows 10’s release we still have settings scattered in two distinctly different locations.

Well, Control Panel is going away soon (maybe this year). But MS has vary bad experience with applying any modifications to the interface - there's a massive user base that is afraid of any change, although eventually gets used to the new things. And there's a fairly large group that would just prefer to use WinXP, because the only thing they want to do is double click the game launcher.

In the meantime, MS is struggling because of the wrong decision made 30 years ago, when they decided to keep the DOS kernel instead of using something Unix-like. And since gaming is so important for Windows, it became impossible to correct this later.

 

[Jim B (MSP)]

I have read about them, and didn't see the usefulness for me.

I use 2 monitors.

So I checked the 3rd box.

--
Jim
"It's all about the light"

 

[CAcreeks]

And let’s not forget that five and a half years after Windows 10’s release we still have settings scattered in two distinctly different locations.

It's your choice between scrolling around to find settings, or getting out your magnifying glass to read the tiny lettering of Control Panel.

Well, Control Panel is going away soon (maybe this year).

I put this in my Google calendar for November to see if it happens.

But MS has very bad experience with applying any modifications to the interface - there's a massive user base that is afraid of any change, although eventually gets used to the new things.

They didn't need to change Windows 8 so much just to get touch screen support. It was just bad product design, largely due to the arrogance of Steve Sinofsky, from what I've heard.

And there's a fairly large group that would just prefer to use WinXP, because the only thing they want to do is double click the game launcher.

If most people are like I am, they preferred W7. XP hung around because the hardware it ran on was still usable.

Microsoft has plenty of telemetry data, so they should be able to figure out proper defaults and make a system that is just what most people want.

In the meantime, MS is struggling because of the wrong decision made 30 years ago, when they decided to keep the DOS kernel instead of using something Unix-like. And since gaming is so important for Windows, it became impossible to correct this later.

Possibly so. I'm not sure Unix had reasonable licensing terms when they made this decision. MSFT did acquire 25% of SCO but maybe just to get Xenix off the books.

 

[Sean Nelson]

In the meantime, MS is struggling because of the wrong decision made 30 years ago, when they decided to keep the DOS kernel instead of using something Unix-like.

Windows 95/ME were built on DOS but Windows NT, the progenitor of modern Windows systems, was a fresh start that had a lot more in common with Digital Equipment's VMS operating system than DOS.

 

[Austinian]

And let’s not forget that five and a half years after Windows 10’s release we still have settings scattered in two distinctly different locations.

It's your choice between scrolling around to find settings, or getting out your magnifying glass to read the tiny lettering of Control Panel.

Well, Control Panel is going away soon (maybe this year).

I put this in my Google calendar for November to see if it happens.

But MS has very bad experience with applying any modifications to the interface - there's a massive user base that is afraid of any change, although eventually gets used to the new things.

They didn't need to change Windows 8 so much just to get touch screen support. It was just bad product design, largely due to the arrogance of Steve Sinofsky, from what I've heard.

And there's a fairly large group that would just prefer to use WinXP, because the only thing they want to do is double click the game launcher.

If most people are like I am, they preferred W7. XP hung around because the hardware it ran on was still usable.

Microsoft has plenty of telemetry data, so they should be able to figure out proper defaults and make a system that is just what most people want.

In the meantime, MS is struggling because of the wrong decision made 30 years ago, when they decided to keep the DOS kernel instead of using something Unix-like. And since gaming is so important for Windows, it became impossible to correct this later.

If they'd gone to Unix, it would have broken essentially all existing Windows programs, not just games. Backward compatibility has served MS well.

Possibly so. I'm not sure Unix had reasonable licensing terms when they made this decision. MSFT did acquire 25% of SCO but maybe just to get Xenix off the books.

IMO, if the various proprietary Unix vendors had succeeded in their sporadic efforts to unify Unix by the late 1980s they might have ruled the world today. I remember how frustrated I was to have 32-bit CPUs without a 32-bit OS. Alas, instead we got the "Unix wars".

Until Linux came along; oh, joy! At last.

Then finally, Windows 95.

 

[Robert Zanatta]

In the meantime, MS is struggling because of the wrong decision made 30 years ago, when they decided to keep the DOS kernel instead of using something Unix-like.

That statement makes no sense. There's no DOS in Windows/NT, and even the previous flavors of Windows didn't use DOS except to launch Windows.

 

[Simon Garrett]

In the meantime, MS is struggling because of the wrong decision made 30 years ago, when they decided to keep the DOS kernel instead of using something Unix-like.

That statement makes no sense. There's no DOS in Windows/NT, and even the previous flavors of Windows didn't use DOS except to launch Windows.

The last version of Windows to sit on top of DOS was probably Windows 98. Everything since has been NT based.

 

[Billiam29]

There’s still some “cosmetic” DOS/DOS-based Windows residuals left over on the command line though. For example, can we just rename tracert to traceroute already? Is 8.3 naming really still a requirement for this? Is there a reason ping isn’t continuous by default like pretty much every other operating system on Earth?

 

[Austinian]

In the meantime, MS is struggling because of the wrong decision made 30 years ago, when they decided to keep the DOS kernel instead of using something Unix-like.

That statement makes no sense. There's no DOS in Windows/NT, and even the previous flavors of Windows didn't use DOS except to launch Windows.

The last version of Windows to sit on top of DOS was probably Windows 98.

Windows Me, I think. The "Mistake edition" is one of the few post-95 Windows versions I never used. Fortunately.

Everything since has been NT based.

Yes, by the time Me was released I'd moved to NT.

 

[Simon Garrett]

In the meantime, MS is struggling because of the wrong decision made 30 years ago, when they decided to keep the DOS kernel instead of using something Unix-like.

That statement makes no sense. There's no DOS in Windows/NT, and even the previous flavors of Windows didn't use DOS except to launch Windows.

The last version of Windows to sit on top of DOS was probably Windows 98.

Windows Me, I think. The "Mistake edition" is one of the few post-95 Windows versions I never used. Fortunately.

I'm sure that's right; I'd forgottem Me. As most people have.

Everything since has been NT based.

Yes, by the time Me was released I'd moved to NT.

 

[CAcreeks]

Windows Me, I think. The "Mistake edition" is one of the few post-95 Windows versions I never used. Fortunately.

I'm sure that's right; I'd forgotten ME. As most people have.

Everything since has been NT based.

Yes, by the time ME was released I'd moved to NT.

When NT arrived in our lab, I installed the SCSI card (was it PCE bus?) provided with my HP Photosmart scanner. It crashed the system. So much for a "real" OS. I went back to W98.

When IT upgraded me to an XP box, my friend who had purchased a Nikon Coolscan gave me his old USB connected Photosmart II scanner.

Those were the days, my friend! We thought they'd never end. Дорогой длинною !

 

[Sean Nelson]

When NT arrived in our lab, I installed the SCSI card (was it PCE bus?)

Probably ISA or EISA . Or, less likely, MCA ...

 

[pkosewski]

I put this in my Google calendar for November to see if it happens.

It should on the consumer version. I don't know what will happen in the Enterprise product.

The fun part of this is that Windows 10 Enterprise (and Server) have a very good automatic software installer that lets you schedule updates, install and configure programs automatically, set permissions etc - things that are absent on the consumer version, so you either have to install everything yourself (so resetting Windows can take hours) or rely on very limited 3rd party services (like Chocolatey).

But 2021 is supposed to be the year Windows strikes back. Revampled Settings, proper package manager, maybe even native Linux kernel for GUI apps. We'll see.

Possibly so. I'm not sure Unix had reasonable licensing terms when they made this decision. MSFT did acquire 25% of SCO but maybe just to get Xenix off the books.

The main reason was backwards compatibility. MS also assumed (correctly) that keeping a separate system will give them exclusivity in many popular apps. Basically: games and MS Office - they didn't need anything else.