http://norman.walsh.name/2004/06/10/whySummer 7 98 2004-06-10T07:50:00-04:00 $Date: 2005-09-11 10:27:02 -0400 (Sun, 11 Sep 2005) $ Norman Walsh 2004 Norman Walsh Tim asks why one might run a browser at less than 800 pixels wide. I expect he actually knows, but just in case: some reasons. [Updated: What about Alt-Tab?] Tim Bray asks why one might run a browser at less than 800 pixels wide. I expect he actually knows, but just in case: That’s why. I run emacs at 90x70 which leaves a meager 690 pixels or so for the browser. I could squeeze a few more pixels out by dropping my emacs down to 82 columns or so, but I like to give myself a little room where it really counts: in emacs, where I do most of my living. Edit in the left pane; view issues lists, message archives, etc., in the right. (There are a couple of shell windows below the browser.) A convenient consequence of this setup is that I can also get a couple of shells next to the browser: I keep four desktops going most of the time: one for “real work,” one for browsing, one for email, and one for everything else. You get work done without virtual desktops? I don’t know how. In any event, thank you, Tim. The “shift click, maximize window, click, click, restore-window shuffle” became tedious long ago.

Michael Rys points out that Alt Tab provides a modicum of relief for folks with only a single desktop. And obviously, my window manager can do it. Very nicely, thank you very much. But I still find multiple desktops cleaner. I don’t just want to bring my mail client to the foreground when I’m reading mail, or my editing window when I’m coding, I want to preserve the whole context. For what it’s worth, I relied heavily on Perfect Screens when I was running Windows. Paid for itself within hours. Give it a try; you too may wonder how you ever lived with a single desktop.