MacOS Split Screen

Scrivener Scrivener for macOS
21

Employee, user, owner, developer, neophyte, or whatever, every single post here carries equal weight and reflects in some significant way on the company and its products.

Merx

22

Scrivener isn’t the only app with a split screen sharing problem. Some examples I use every day on my Mac:

  • Spark, an email client: insists on taking up more than half of a 2084 pixel wide screen, and won’t slim down. I usually pair it with a skinny companion, Firefox.
  • Bear, a note-taking app: likewise insists on more than half of my 2084 pixel screen real estate. Once I get it paired with something (BusyCal usually), though, I can slim it down.
  • Discord, a social media app: yet another initial screen width hog…

In short, if Scrivener is your only width-hog, you’re just lucky. With its side panels, it’s worse than many, but it can be worked around. I like to pair it up with one other app and just leave it for weeks so I don’t have to futz with it often.

23

Including yours, I presume? – Katherine

24

Oh yes, here are two cool Scrivener features that can help out with tight split screen width. Scrivener->Preferences… Appearance panel, Full Screen: All full screen options apply to split screen as well.

  • Tick “Hide binder and inspector when entering full screen mode” to automatically slim Scrivener down so it will split with most other apps without you doing anything.
  • If your split space is really tight, tick “Slide in binder and inspector when hidden”. Then when you hover your mouse either over the screen edge or over the split boundary, the binder or inspector will slide in as appropriate. Thus you can have all your split space available for editors, corkboard, etc.

Hope this helps!

25

Admire your constructive approach, Silverdragon.

Alas, neither setting resolves the current issue when tiling a second app alongside Scrivener on my Macs.

The workaround you mentioned higher in this thread does work.

Thanks.

Merx

26

It works perfectly here.

27

@Silverdragon–Did you mean 2048 pixels wide? My question isn’t a pedantic one; my display knowledge is limited. I’m learning.

A general thought (for anyone) on reports of different results with equally capable displays–could this be because some are running at scaled?

28

You’re right, 2048. It’s actually a 2560 x 1080, running scaled.

29

Thank you, SD.