The former. A tiling WM covers the entire desktop with whatever windows are visible in the workspace. One window starts out full screen, creating a second window halves the first one and tiles them side-by-side, and so on. I would only see the desktop when I switch to a new empty workspace, but the reason I switched to a new empty workspace in the first place is because I wanted to start a new window there, so that glimpse of the desktop would be short-lived.
Many tiling WMs have an option for gaps between the windows. Do you find them unpleasant? I love my 8px gaps. Most of the wallpaper is still covered, though.
I agree. For me the point of a tiling window manager is that it efficiently uses the screen space automatically. I don't have to drag windows around to do it.
Automatically wasting space sounds less attractive...
Tiling window managers generally size windows as large as possible. Windows only shrink to make way for other windows, so unless you do something weird, or switch to a desktop with no windows, or have some sort of transparency enabled, you won't see your background at all.
They've actually never had a second mouse button. They started letting you fake having a right mouse button with touch but they never put the second switch in.
Well on trackpads. Their mice actually do still have a switch. Also Apple's definition of "off" these days keeps the trackpad and keyboard alive so you can click or press a key to turn it on. Why? I have no idea and it makes doing things like cleaning the keyboard really annoying.
That’s really great advice and I think you’re very smart and intelligent for having such a brave opinion, but that does not help me as I already have a MacBook, and moreover it really doesn’t actually affect my comment.
> all your games (ALL)
This is measurably untrue; modern computers have trouble with the Windows XP era of games a lot of the time. Many games require tinkering and some will just crash after a minute.
> This is measurably untrue; modern computers have trouble with the Windows XP era of games a lot of the time. Many games require tinkering and some will just crash after a minute.
This is mostly the fault of games and not Windows. Software usually breaks because of unfounded assumptions, for example, that user documents are always at a specific location or that CPU frequency is always constant. Instead of using Windows API functions to retrieve the path or keep track of frequency, lazy developers often halfass the implementation, hardcode values into their code and that breaks sometime in the future when those API functions become meaningful.
I'm pretty sure MacBooks have extremely high resale values; it should be possible to sell yours and get a PC without spending an extra dime if you want to follow the OP's advice.
It must be repeated that Microsoft's absolute devotion(servitude?) to backwards compatibility is nigh unparalleled.
Yes, there will be some amount of inevitable jank, but by and large the latest version of Windows will happily run software originally written almost 30 years ago for Windows 95.
On this very thread we have the example of WineVDM, a product whose mere existence shows that these days it is Wine who has better backwards compatibility. Better than Windows itself.
Do you have any good articles on how to cheaply and easily stop using apple product, if one is photographer, filmmaker, musician (edit: or iOS developer), and has thousands of hours and dollars invested in MacOS software?
Easy to do if one is starting now with computers but not an option for those who already invested time and money on Apple hardware and use it for their daily work.
In these context I would rather suggest to buy (or build, which is also fun and instructive) a 2nd PC machine running whatever the user wants. This would also helps to keep the two worlds separated (work|tinkering). That involves some money for sure, but if the user has a job involving Apple products, chances are that a much more affordable platform like a PC won't be a problem.
