avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Tuesday May 28, 2024, 9:33 am
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: The Earth's a ball, and your screen's cut out from its skin, or isn't it?  (Read 3988 times)


  • Member
  • Joined in 2017
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Somewhere in 2001 or 02, I bought a hp pavilion f1723 (17", 1280x1024, no pivot unfortunately) for some 350€, in order to replace my old, bulky cathode-ray monitor (also 17" and 1280x1024, but which had cost 600€ years before); some 6 years ago, I bought a second hp pavilion f1723 from ebay (30€, no pivot either then, but I wanted them to be assorted), and these last 6 years, I always used these 2 screens together, "angled" around 25 degrees, the gap being in front of me, and me slightly turning my head for either screen.

I found this very convenient, the fact that this way none of the screens faced my chest in parallel position never bothered me; the only problem for me (except for the fact that I couldn't read pdf's without scrolling  1024 pix being insufficient height) was that I "needed" 1280 pix' width each for my respective main application (left screen, the direction more natural for me, cf. "The Brain" (David Niven), Gérard Oury 1969), and for my respective helper application (right screen), which left no room for some additional perhaps 300 pix screen width somewhere, for some super-tree (always-visible file manager / launcher list / file favorites and the like); hadn't it been for my finally-unnecessary "need" for symmetry, I'd better had bought a larger screen as my main screen, I admit that (my graphics card would have allowed up to 1600 pix).

So that was that. Now, I finally treated myself with an i7700 (16 giga), since XP being fine for me, I'd been too much left behind by current developments in software, and I judged it adequate to also buy a new main screen, so it's been an HP again, E272q, 27", 2560x1444, and again this was 350€ - that's progress, isn't it?

You can imagine how pleased I've been that all of its millions of pix seem to run fine for the moment, and yes, photos and videos are a joy to watch, and its PLS technology (no FN anymore) is looking-angle-insensitive, as promised, so all should be well. (One of my old screens's now for additional trees, lists, whatever's needed or helpful, the big screen stands in front of me, the "little" one on its side, angled at some 35, 40 degrees.)

Aside: I had also considered buying 2 (identical) screens instead and with 1920x1200 pix each, and to position them in my traditional way, angled and with the gap in front of me, but then I had thought both my old screens were always good for additional things, and perhaps it would be nice to have my main screen in front of me, like most people do, and perhaps there was a reason they do, and I'd like the additional 240 pix' height a lot, anyway (1440 against 1200 only).
It's interesting to see that 1920x1024 screens are much (!) cheaper than 1920x1200 screens, but it seems crazy to me to have to pivot a 1920x1024 screen - if pivoting it is possible to begin with, which isn't possible with the cheaper models most of the time, or then they go back to TN which is really bad when angled view is involved - in order to read "A4" pages without scrolling... for the U.S. / G.B. formats, even 1200, and even 1440, seem to be a little limit.
The ideal format, from my point of view, would come with a height of 1600 pix, but all of those screens are incredibly overpriced, they literally ripp of those who need them, and dissuade anybody who just would love to have some.
Also, my screen, 2560x1440 as said, isn't as high as I had expected; today's (?) pix obviously aren't square (anymore?), so how come there isn't distortion to be seen (in some pic, people's faces squeezed from hair to chin)?
Why not have bought some "4K" monitor instead? For two reasons. First, I (perhaps wrongly) suspect them to be better suited for viewing pics and vids than for doing work, and then, there's always the problem with "old" software's screen (text) output not being that readable then anymore.
There's also curved monitors now: As with the "4K" variety, in the stores, they invariably run with pics-and-vids, so you never really can be sure that they're really apt for real work except if you buy one, trial it, then send it back again if your local laws permit you to do so.

Now back to my problem. Please imagine a rectangle with the corners A, B, C, D, and with a straight line in the middle, from x to y:

A        x        B

    1         2

C        y        D

Let's assume all these 6 points lie in the same 0-depth layer (it's a flat screen, ha, ha).

As implied above, I display some application between A, x, C and y (left half of the screen, area 1), and another one between x, B, y and D (right half of the screen, area 2). The visible surface of the screen is 60x33,5 cm, my viewing distance is around 50-60 cm (for full-screen videos, that would be nearer 1m10 indeed): that's the distance I don't have wear glasses (yet).
I currently don't use the free tool MaxTo for these "half-screen" applications yet, and which would be for "maximizing" (the Windows command) these applications within and onto those coordinates axCy and xByD, respectively; such a tool will probably not be necessary anymore in Win10, I'll see.

Geographists learn a lot about so-called "projections" - see the title of this thread -: All map-making is about them, the bigger the scale, the bigger the distortion problems, and when then even the politically-correct people jump in, you'll really have fun. Be that as it may, cathode ray tubes replicated many of those problems, perfectly unnecessarily from a user's, just wanting to do text processing, number crunching or other intrinsically flat from start on tasks, point of view, and even count in our venerable Church for all things, still just some centuries ago (wikipedia: "Flat Earth"), so they decidedly had no problems whatsoever with map-making in those jolly pre-screen times, screens curved or not.

Anyway, I swear that on my HP E272q, the text in area 1 falls down to the middle, while the text in area 2 does likewise, so here, the lines go up to the right... oh, but wait, just one hour ago, my (1) text lines rose, weil the (2) ones fell! (We write from left to right here in Europe, for the time being.)

In any case, points A, B, C, D are positioned some 10, 12 mm behind points x and y (those in the middle), and also, the latter are some 5, 6 mm behind the central point of my screen, and that's about like it was that one hour ago, so if you imagine my screen as part of a balloon screen with a diametre of some 12 m or so, that would be probably near regular as in "to be expected", and yes, x isn't in a line of A and B, while y isn't in a line with C and D, but I cannot decide if they're both down or both up - well, in this very moment, they're both up, decidedly, even the black task line is neatly curved, every ruler will confirm that.

Or then, in fact not, as you will have guessed since long; of course, I've applied a ruler, not as long as my screen's broad, but one that measures 50 cm all the same, and if I move backwards some 30 cm, all this remains as described, my eyes constantly play pranks on me.

So we've got an important lesson here, when your eyes aren't young anymore and distort your vision - which is my case, and for driving, I wear corrective glasses accordingly - some wide screen very unfortunately can expose and even over-emphasize such defects of yours to yourself, and to the point of becoming very annoying, when with a more classic setup,

I've not got a headache yet, I've got 11 more days to return the screen if needed... but I would like to get some tidy, comfy replacement in case, even two times the current price (i.e. up to 700€) if necessary, but I'd abhor wearing screen glasses, and I'm not ready for surgery yet (cataract's slowly progressing anyway, so that'll come at some point).

Presumably, an even larger screen's not the solution, despite the fact that its pixel size will be bigger. Regular pix size being around 0.27 mm, for those screens like mine now it's around 0.245 only (while for 19" 1280x1024 screens, it's about 0.29), for "4K" it's even less, and while some 30" screen with my current solution would have bigger, "better" pixels, my viewing distance (to at least significant parts of the screen) would be greater, at it seems that I should remain relatively close by my screen(s) in order to not wrongly perceive such distortions.

I suppose the ideal solution for me would be a set up with two 1600x1200 screens, angled like my previous 1200x1024 had been, but that would be two times 700€: they ask a fortune for that format. Or then, and if I cannot learn to live with my current screen, two screens 1920x1200, an then not using the outer areas.

Or then there would be just one current, acceptable curved monitor 2560x1440, 31.5", from 750€) (there's just another one, 27", same price) - theoretically, I could order it immediately, while the current's still there, in order to compare, then send back one of them: But would that be reasonable a) price-wise, b) task-wise: Is curved (concave here, not the feigned-convex described above) any good for real work or couldn't trying that drive people nuts instead?

And what about curved plus 4K then? They're in the range 37-40", a VA-Philips being less than 700€, an IPS-Acer the double of that, no much choice anyway...

Some years ago, somebody mentioned his setup of then in this forum: 4 portrait screens (each 1280x2024, supposedly, since anything else probably would have got much too big) in angled lineup around his keyboard, and in there's two matches at least with my former half-of-that (but "landscape") setup which will have to be considered separately, and of which the relative impact's probably quite distinct:

First, while it's true that on a 1280 x whatever, I cannot read the lines from edge to edge - and there should not be any text lines so large to begin with - the frame of the screen serves as some psychological frame: what's within that frame is self-contained, is some "unit(y)" - my subconscious doesn't try to "read", to become aware of neighboring contents which furthermore are on surfaces clearly angled with respect to the current surface, the current content set, but everything which is within that 1280 x whatever-it-heigh frame, is included within my immediate perception, be it really readable (without eye movement) or not. We've got clear separation of concepts, no subconscious interference with further "offerings" - the retina is a part of the brain, so whatever you see plays its role, no "decisions" (to discard) involved here (possible discardings are made in further processing only, albeit often very effectively). So, probably with some vertical, black, 100 or 150 pix wide bar to sacrifice from your screen real estate and between your applications...?

Second, and that could probably be the much more important factor here, when you've got several but not-so-large, individual screens (I'm not speaking of walls of individual screens in some monitor room, obviously), your viewing angle for anything, anywhere on those screens is either 90 degrees or at least in the vicinity.

Not so with large screens when not curved (and that curving should arise other, new problems I fear): Either you move your whole chest a lot (and then tilt your head quite considerably), or your average viewing angle diverges quite a lot from those 90-110 degrees which might be the only really safe range, psychologically.

Remember how they depict people and objects in photos, in paintings: strong vanishing lines are rare, face-on's the rule. So why do you think that now, with IPS - which, yeah, renders at least readable vanishing texts -, characters very perceptively fleeing from you, will suddenly become entirely tamed and inoffensive when it comes to their cognitive processing ? (Again, the retina is part of the brain itself, not some usb-connected device operating independently, then sending just bits over the wire, the tonality of how it sees something deeply influences any further processing.)

That could be, btw, the reason why people with (very) large screens usually don't divide them into dedicated regions but juggle with and between multiple "windows", in multiple partial overlay, a substantial part of their screens being left unused or allocated as scrap area: Subconsciously, they may be trying to always minimize the deviation from the 90 degree angle, and that'd reduce the large-screen concept to absurdity for textual and similar applications (while it'd remain valid for anything "entertainment", for the overall view in pics, vids, maps, graphics in general, and of course for spreadsheets, and there in spite of the drawbacks but for spreadsheets' special requirements): Multiplicity of tinier, angled-positioned, all user-oriented screens (with narrow edges, but which should probably remain very distinctive? see my first point of musings) - and with probably a better resolution than the traditional 0.27 mm pixel width! -, could probably be the much better solution, physiologically, or then, curved screens indeed?

IPS just being another pseudo-solution to a problem not resolved yet? And gamers and video freaks raving of curved screens (cf. curved screens in cinemas, but what their individual effect in the different rows in the room?): These are precisely the people who can't (or more correctly: who, understandably, are not willing to) cope with some "active", tinier window nearby so that its ideal 90-100 degree angle is preserved, so they want the same condition be met by other means.

Uh? It's all about de luxe demands, you say? And if there's a real need beyond those, for proper, non-disturbed, efficient info processing? Cf. games and their crucial reaction times: Thus, is there some thesis around already proving - or invalidating? but I'd bet my a** not! - my theory that the same persons will be more successful gamers in front of a curved screen (once they will have become accustomed to it that is)? (Don't show this thread to your children. Or then, do justify your own necessary expenses towards your wife by this thread.)

Ideas/arguments/experiences welcome. Did I say my screen dives in the middle and has wings, just like a fan or druther like a dove in the very moment it gracefully touches down onto the sea?


  • Member
  • Joined in 2017
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Remember Hasselblad?

That new screen of mine's as good as it gets, and there's no real alternative in sight. While with astigmatism (or whatever it is), you aren't well-advised to either put two text applications onto your screen, each of them taking exactly its half (simily-symmetry, "lines" to be continued over the whole width - the effect is less when you do it 2/3 / 1/3 for example), and/or to try to read texts from a central, symmetric viewing position - the screen right in front of you, you always can playe your screen(s) as I did with my original ones (2x 17" with 1280x1024 each):

One of my original 17" is placed as it had been, at about 30 degrees angled, while my new screen is "behind" the left one, equally angled about 30 degrees inwards, and for my respective application, I use about the "first", inner 2/3 of its width, or even a little bit less, around 36 cm of 59.5 cm, and frankly, I don't know too well yet what I'll do with the rest, far out to the right.

Within those abount 36 cm, my visual angle remains within the 90-100 degrees range, as with my 17" screen (34 cm in all for the screen without border) - remember, both screens are angled towards me -, and clearly (and subjectively only), the left corners of the screen flee to the back, as well as the right ones do (and any texts with them: trees like the FF bookmarks for example), but this isn't disturbing anymore since the pane (the surface of the LCD screen itself) flees with it and in the same direction, just not as sharply (parallax): The screen itself is turned into the same direction as the textlines just seem to vanish, so that's ok, doesn't irritate. (It's only when I think of it and look out for it that it becomes clearly "visible".)

Not so for the third of the screen to the right: Here, as before, the text lines flee from me, while the screen approaches me, and the receding of the lines from left to right doesn't remain imperceptible at all. So for the time being, I put some tools over there, I use it as a scrap area, for nothing important, and at the end of the day, I really could do without it: Over there, it's all of no real use.

On the other hand, for some applications, that space is almost invaluable, speaking of videos (remember that then the viewing distance is 1 m or 1m20, so the viewing angle will be diminished again), spreadsheets (I don't use Excel often, but when I do, it's incredibly better now than with trying to read some spreadsheet spread over two or more screens), and of course anything "graphics", be it vector graphics, business graphics, flowcharts, mindmaps, google maps, piping, whatever): As with spreadsheets, it's not that text near the outer edge now became really "readable" suddenly (in the sense of "not disturbing while being read"), but it's about "holding all the relevant things together (incl. palettes, too), even if then you must move your chest quite a lot in order to reduce the viewing angle again.

My current setup is rather ugly since my main screen, the left one, now looks pretty lame in comparison - and mouse movement from my right screen (1440 pix) to the left one (1024 pix) isn't easy either: either, it isn't smooth nearing the top of the screen, or to the bottom, or, but lesser, on both ends.

Also, the screens are 15 or more years apart, and that shows, and to now have more pixels on my main screen, too, wouldn't be a bad idea after all, while there is no other screen format offering the same height (1440 pix) though.

When I said "behind", it's understood that all screens are tilted, so it's only the bottom edges where you can't see the right one, positioned behind the left one: All the luminous surface and even most of the right edge is clearly visible because of that tilting-plus-angle-positioning, and that triangle which opens more and more from bottom to top could be diverting for some: you can peek thru it. I don't see anything behind anymore - I do just now, writing about it -, but in case, you could place something evenly-surfaced there.

So it's about not having a large central screen since then anything near the edges would get too bad a viewing angle / would be too far away, and that also applies to additional screens over there. So what about a tinier central screen? That would be possible of course, and probably, for not-graphics' work, not-viewing-films-too, 3 screens of 1600x1200 each would be ideal...

But then, why not 3 times 1600x1600, while we are at it? In fact, I love the additional 420 pix' more height I've got now very much, and I'd even miss those additional 220 pix of some 1920x1200 screen (they are much more expensive than 1920x1080: vendors obviously know about their totally different degree of usefulness) to what I have currently.

When I ask, remember Hasselblad, I know they still exist, but I'm referring to their almost-defunct-now 6x6 film format. People say it had not been invented as some new artistic frame to be filled, even though many artists then took it as that, and even today, I'm very pleased, most of the time, whenever I see some well-designed square photography - they've become very rare, as you will discover, now you'll be looking out.

Now, they were meant as the shoot-and-point of the old days, i.e. for handheld studio photography (flash!), and then looking out for something within the frame which could be usable. Anyway, I don't know if this is explanation of the format is the correct one, or if it then just became a handy afterthought: Weren't box cameras even earlier, with 4x4cm on film strips notably? Then, large format cameras came with non-square pane film very early, indeed...

Whatever, it's undeniable that the "ideal" film format is the circle, technically-wise, since lenses are circular, and since we all view that format as unacceptable, since box cameras aren't as needed anymore, for the developments in optical correction, and since it's easy to pivot today's light hand cameras, and since, according to the subject they're after, most leisure photographers even get to decide if they want their photo in portrait or landscape, today's sensor remain rectangle, non-squared, since that way, the same target quality can be reached for less expense, less unused pixels on the sensor.

Now compare again with today's monitors and their pricing, with their sheer availability even, and you'll see that today's market is distorted, the most-frequently bought screens being good for nothing other than for viewing newer Hollywood films, and the next-ideal centre screen, a 1600x1200 (1600x1600 not being available at any price), costing a little fortune or then, around 100 bucks (according to the size, i.e. the pix size) when you're willing to accept an exemplar which is probably 10 years old.

It'll be probably just some of these "refurbished" (which means: dusted and checked for a second: it runs? so it's good to be resold!) 1600x1200 screens as my new main screen, assorted a little bit better to the new large one, with its pixels not too broad, for a better viewing angle, and I'll be done, since even for 800€ and more, I could not get any screen assorted to the pix height of my large screen... except for a similar one, i.e. the same one once more (and for a mere 350€ again), but what should I do with TWO such quite monstruos screens, angled towards me and reaching out for my edge of my desk? At some point, you'll feel imprisoned...

The other viable alternative: Buying a second new screen, but instead of buying a 1600x1200 for 700€ plus which would be more than foolish, an around-220€ 1920x1200; I had briefly thought of returning my current 2540(or whatever it is to the last digit down)x1440 and buying two 1920x1200 instead, but quickly discarded that bad idea: For just some bucks less, I'd not only renounce 240 height pix, but also around 600 pix on the side which, as said, come at least handy here and then, and then they come very handy. It goes without saying though that I'd prefer to buy now a second, but shortened, almost-identical screen, 1600x1440, even at the same price as the larger one (and as we know, that format isn't available either), and yes, I know that I could simply buy a second one of my current kind, then hide its unwanted part behind the other screen (instead of its too much reaching out to me and "enclosing" me: it seems that the positioning angle of my smaller screen is necessarily sharper than the one of my wide screen, in order to withheld a narrow viewing angle for both, and no, I never sit straight in parallel to my desk), but as you certainly imagine, that would have a different but quite as crazy, perhaps even weirder psychological effect.

Aside: I had spoken of the "free tool" MaxTo above, by mistake. In fact, MaxTo had been free years ago, while it's 19$ now, and I meant the (currently still) free MaxMax; both tools are meant to have "maximized" application windows only maximize up to a predefined rectangle, while you can predefinze the boundaries (i.e. the position and the size) of these rectangles seperately for each application in MaxMax, which comes very handy; ditto for the possibility to override this controlled no-that-much-maximizing by pressing some key; in MaxTo it's probably similar.
As for W10's "Snap" functionality (snapping windows to screen edges or to other windows), it simply doesn't work for me, notwithstanding the fact that I played around many minutes with it, incl. reading all the relevant threads in the web and observing their advice, so MaxMax is a quite handy tool for me, I just have to set it all up correctly (or must macro it all by myself, but see no need to do see, with MaxMax being there).

And I didn't even mention today's ribbons denting into our screens' height... (nor photographer's color needs, but that's easy, that's just a matter of money, not of non-availability). And here's the short version of it all: Make screen sizes plastic in order to make me happy. And yes, there's always the (partial) solution to get glasses, contact lenses or surgery, but had I opted for any of those, I wouldn't have mused about viewing angles in the age of IPS (younger people have a broader field of vision anyway, so probably their parallaxed view isn't as disturbing either). And of course, you could set up a multi-screen farm, any single element pivoted up, but then you'd discover that even 1440 pix large per unit isn't enough and by far, pivoting in 2560x1440 screens is just provided for marketing and for rendering the stand less solid, or then for very special cases of application - oh, I know one of those even, but that's know-how to be withheld.


  • Member
  • Joined in 2017
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Text Cursor vs Mouse Cursor

I occurs to me that during all these years, I haven't done one thing right; I switched between my most important applications by keyboard keys (or then by a 1-key Alt-Tab replacement for the respective last-previous application (toggle)), but I always moved the mouse manually if needed, and the mouse is needed a lot (except for file managers where I do it all with the kb, except for mult-selects, and here and there a dragndrop).

This un-smart way of doing things was bearable in a 2x 1280x1024-pix setup; now where there are 3 or more applications visible all the time, and the mouse cursor may have been left anywhere, this isn't viable anymore: First, I tried with lots of gratuitous moving around of the mouse, just in order to check where the curser might have been, then I replaced the default system cursor setting with quite some monstruous cursors very visible indeed but not bearable to the eye, then I finally started to think for half a minute.

It's easy indeed. If you have kb macros which either run a program or (when the application doesn't has a setting "allow for 1 instance only") activate it (when it's already running: by: if there is a window with partial title "name of application here) then activate the window; else, run the application, with such a setting, just run the application), the text cursor (or however it's called) is activated over there, but the mouse cursor stays where it is, so you simply must programmatically move your mouse cursor, too - not for clicking the mouse in its target position (which technically would be possible, too, but which could have unwanted effects; just moving the cursor.

The name of your "target" application is already known, and it has got some window position and size, which are both determined by the 4 coordinates A, B, C, D, as seen above for the screen surface; it's similar for any window. So you can retrieve the position of A, B, C and D, then let's say you would like to position the mouse cursor at some relative (!) position x, in the centre of the window, or, for example, at a position y, 1/3 of the height, 1/3 of the width of that window. Note that this is also possible for windows of "plastic" size within a cluttered desktop, not only for windows with fixed sizes and fixed positions. That makes, for any mouse position a, b, a very simple calculation in your macro tool, and all your activation/run macros could get the same call to this "function" or sub-routine (one-and-for-all, and, of course, with some wait command, waiting, in case, that the "target" application will have been loaded (so that the coordinates of its window can be retrieved).

Whenever you then switch applications, by macro instead of by Alt-Tab*, your mouse cursor will already be within the vicinity at least of where you then will probably be in need for it, so searching for the mouse cursor is abolished, and also, your always necessary manual mouse movements will be reduced to a minimum.

*: You could even do it, this way of doing things included; you simply put the PosMouse() function, instead of putting it into the trigger macros, into something like OnApplicChange() or the like; if that's not available, you set up a timer checking for application changes, say, 2 times per sec.

Also, theoretically, it's possible to position the mouse cursor at a specific position, for a specific application or for a specific group of applications, or even for any application but depending on its window size and/or position - I'd call that hobby macroing, extended macroing just for the fun of it, and I have never felt the utility to have the mouse on some specific position within any application, except for the execution of some macro, but such macros aren't that much reliable anyway; on the other hand, if one of your application comes with a lot of palettes for example, perhaps it's a good idea to position the mouse pointer 1/3-1/3 into the main work area of that application, not at 1/3 1/3 of its overall window, but that would be exceptional, very specific adjustments to be made.

Do You Have a Cluttered Desktop?

See MaxMax (or MaxTo if you want to pay, or MS Snap if that thing works on your system) above for prefiguring screen positions / snapping of application windows. If you prefer the Cluttered Desktop, the mouse advice is possible, too, as explained, since the necessary mouse pointer position will be calculated on run-time, just the relative position is pre-set.

I have never used a Cluttered Desktop in my life I admit - when you trigger everything by kb or by some application launcher tool (home-made or bought, no difference), there is simply no need to ever look at the desktop, besides when turning on the pc.

BUT I now understand much better why for example @wraith808 sees uses for tools like "Fences": In fact, when you use the MS "desktop" as background for an ever-moving set of "plastic" (different positions, different sizes, too, probably) application windows, then why not have ready some application shortcuts grouped in some "Fences" field or other: With a visible desktop, such applications can be maintained continuously (all/most of the time) visible, too, so that's quite another situation than the one I described in the KM/KVM thread and which was, display the desktop, move the mouse to the wanted icon, re-activate the your previous application window(s) (besides the new one, and one by one) which, by activation of the desktop, have all been hidden now.

Thus, "desktop enhancers" are really useless in my style of work (applications maximized or maximized to pre-defined areas of the screen(s), while they may be useful indeed for anybody who, while working, always sees some parts of the desktop (which implies that none of their applications is maximized).

I do NOT know how Mr. Bartels does it do for ShareMouse, that "greying out" of whole windows, but it's the ideal way to indicate the active window - when, as said, you set the "greying out" very lightly, so that the inactive windows all remain perfectly readable but, at the same time, become "greyed out", designed as "inactive"; as said in that thread, a "blackness" of just around 15 % seems perfect for this effect, without "too-much-blackened" inactive windows becoming threatening or at least very ugly; if it's still lightly-only greyed-out, it remains perfectly viable.

Does anybody know how greying-out of the whole screen, except for the active window, would technically be done?

EDIT July 24, 2017: I'm asking for a more "natural" solution to this problem, of course, than the creation of 4 rectangular, always-inactive windows for each screen would be, and in which those windows would be of plastic size (could even be 0,0, in case the active window is (regularly) maximized), position (default would be 0,0 here again) and greyness = transparence (set by the user to their convenience, ditto for color (e.g. for girlies)): That would work, of course, but should be considered a "dirty" solution, even though the timer-basis would ensure that those rectangles would be moved and resized accordingly whenever the user moves and/or resizes the active window. (End of Edit)

As said, this should be done; at this time, in ShareMouse, the inactive screen (!) is greyed-out, and Multiplicity puts a colored frame around the active screen (!), not around the active window, so what I describe here isn't done yet but would be oh so useful! On the other hand, systematically putting a colored frame around the active window (!) would be easy; just decide about the thickness and the color, and then put its drawing into the macro described above, preferably with a timer indeed; the less de-sync between indications and the specific real situation, the better!
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 08:14 AM by ital2 »