This statement is just incorrect. Apparently jjj is not familiar with Mac OSX which does support multiple monitors in both "mirror mode" as well as "extended desktop". The menu bar in extended desktop mode can be placed on either monitor. Stretching the menu bar across both monitors accomplishes nothing except distorting the screen resolution.
Actually I was correct, you simply misread post or did not understand what I was talking about. I know how to use OSX with dual monitors and more importantly, I also know how to use Windows with dual monitors and guess what? You get more options and ease of use with Windows. I did not say OSX couldn't do multiple monitors
, just that it wasn't very good.
I like to use programmes in full screen mode to reduce clutter, with OSX that means filling one screen only. On a PC that means filling one screen or
across entire desktop depending on how you set your preferences, which is possible to do on a programme by programme level. How it is done depends on which graphics card you are using. You can even assign parts of a screen to limit programmes if you so wish, again depending on graphics card.
Mirror mode is completely pointless/irrelevant for dual monitor workflow, though it is very handy for demostrations where you work on your laptop and the audience see a projected version.
Extended desktop on a Mac results in wasted space/blank area on the monitor where there is no menu bar and when you manually drag a programme to [almost] fit entire desktop. The full screen mode usually fills just the single screen, not the desktop, full screen mode on a PC can fill entire desktop, not half or most of it.
With multiple displays and OSX, the problem is that your menu bar can end up nowhere near your programme. Specifically when using programmes on the monitor without the menu bar. This results in pointless mousing and potential confusion due to the complete disassociation of menu and programme window and the fact that the only indication of the live programme being used is sometimes the tiny bit of plain text on menu bar. Which is a very small area on a large extended desktop. OSX can be way too subtle at times, especially when different programmes can also look so alike. The Windows method of attaching Menu to programme, not fixed to top of a single monitor, is way superior when using multiple monitors. Can imagine how awful using OSX would be with say 6 screens and having to always go back to one for any menu options?http://www.digitaltigers.com/images/image.gif
And don't make pointless comments about how that is not how you would use multiple monitors or the programmes being displayed as it is just an example of how you could use it.
OSX is far more painful to use than Windows with multiple apps on multiple monitors. The justification for the fixed menu bar that people spout regarding Apple's decision, is better adherence to Fitt's law. Which sadly falls down as soon as you start to use multiple monitors. Plus it completely fails to take into account the ease of moving mouse a little way to hit menu as opposed to moving it a long to hit menu. Plus this concept was postulated in 1954 long before the GUIs we use were even though of. And theories don't always work as expected, especially with workflow.
Each monitor is calibrated separately which is a feat that Windows has not yet mastered.
I recently calibrated both monitors individually on the Mac and ended up with 2 monitors with very different colours. The 'solution' from Colour Confidence was to use the profile of the more correct monitor for the other, so you end up with monitors with identical profiles and in fact no different from windows.
I'm not blaming OSX for this, just pointing out that things don't always work as claimed.