Over the years, I’ve used various utilities to automatically hide the application windows I’m not using at the moment. There’s always one around, and my most recent program of choice, HideItControl, a preference panel from Derman Enteprises, once shareware, has since become free. But then so were some of other others, such as AutoHide.

Now they all work pretty much the same. When you switch to one application, the others are all hidden from view. This cleans up your desktop and makes it easier to get your work done, particularly with a smaller screen, such as the one on the MacBook and its slim and light cousin, the MacBook Air.

Most of the application hiding utilities I’ve used also have an option, usually by pressing the Shift key, to keep an application’s windows visible as you switch to another application. That way you can work with both.

With Leopard, Apple’s better idea was Spaces, a feature that lets you assign a virtual desktop, the entire screen, to one or more applications. That way, all of your, for example, audio applications remain on one desktop, and, say, your Internet software resides in another. You can also define an application to appear in all Spaces if you prefer.

Now there have been a number of virtual or extended desktop utilities over the years that have done pretty much the same thing. Most were eternally buggy, and even Spaces was a little shaky out of the starting gate, where some applications seemed to end up in the wrong space, because you opened them at the wrong time or just because it has multiple toolbars or palettes in addition to a document window.

With 10.5.2, things got a mite better, but losing palettes or toolbars was still a persistent symptom, at least for me. I would be able to maneuver back and forth and sometimes restore the missing screen widgets, or maybe not.

Just the other day, Bias-Peak sent me version 6.0 of their terrific audio editing application Peak Pro. We use it for all our post-production work on the two radio shows, by the way. Well, in the previous version, 5.2, the Contents display window would sometimes vanish during a Spaces switchover. I could restore it by turning off the Contents window and then turning it on again. With 6.0, the symptom extends, apparently, to the toolbar and the Transport windows. Again shutting them off and turning them on after an application switch restores them to visibility.

I’ve encountered similar mischief with Adobe Dreamweaver CS3, and Microsoft Word 2008 can also hiccup during the switch from one desktop to another. I encounter various difficulties of this sort with Ambrosia’s Wiretap Studio and Skype.

But why do I bother? After all, an operating system feature should be doing my bidding, and I shouldn’t have to play little games or time my application launches to conform to Spaces’ fuzzy logic.

So I turned the damn thing off!

Of course, I still need to hide the applications I’m not using, so I returned to HideItControl. Yes, it requires holding down that Shift key to keep multiple applications in the same “space” at the same time. But it doesn’t mess up toolbars, palettes and other components of an application. In fact, it seems perfectly happy working on a PowerPC or Intel-based Mac, and the latest version exhibits no problems with Leopard.

So where does that leave Leopard? Well, Spaces is a neat idea, and the implementation is clever and the special effects are neat and appropriate. But there are just far too many rough edges for me to work around to allow its use in my particular working environment.

Now I’m not going to say flat out that it’s all Apple’s fault. I suspect there are lots and lots of variables in the way applications generate windows, palettes and what-not. Somehow Spaces has to allow for those differences and, in addition, be cognizant of which window you’re in when you open an application, or switch to another Space. There’s a lot of complicated logic here, and I don’t pretend to know whether the problems are Apple’s to fix, or whether outside developers need to find ways to make their products more compliant with the various Leopard features.

I am, by the way, not averse to trying someone else’s virtual desktop utility. So I welcome your recommendations and your experiences, good and bad. And if you have good workarounds for Spaces, let’s hear that too. Regardless of which solution I may ultimately adopt, though, it has to just work. The more things I have to remember to do, the less I’m apt to seriously consider any alternatives but the one I’m using now — HideItControl.

Well, it looks like Microsoft is going to be getting some cash from Apple and RIM has a lot to fear in their lucrative business market. During a session with tech journalists on Thursday morning, Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled the long awaited iPhone SDK. Available as a free download, it is basically an updated version of Apple’s Xcode development environment that lets you program for the iPhone. This will mean games, an AIM instant messaging client and other cool stuff beginning in June, when version 2.0 of the iPhone software is rolled out to users. Most significant, however, is the fact that has licensed Microsoft’s Exchange ActiveSync, and will embed it right into the Mail application on an iPhone. That and other new features, such as Cisco IPsec VPN, will enable business users to readily embrace iPhones and, Apple hopes, send their Blackberries out to pasture. Although the iPhone SDK is free, if you want to actually sell your stuff to iPhone users courtesy of the new Apps Store, you have to enroll in one of Apple’s iPhone Developer Program packages, beginning at $99 per year. And, oh yes, let Apple keep 30% of the take on each sale (although free stuff costs nothing to distribute).

Welcome to the nasty world of disconnect, where a high-flying company can say anything it wants, even if true, and the stock market prefers to look for troubling news.

Of course, that’s a part of that is our tabloid mentality, where we’re always searching for the juicy headlines that make a person or corporation look bad. In those circumstances, if Apple has record profits, the other shoe has to drop and there has to be something very wrong with the picture.

But let’s take a look at what Apple has been saying of late, courtesy of the published reports of their recent shareholder’s meeting, plus some general trends I’ve seen of late.

For one thing, Steve Jobs claims the company’s board has been doing its due diligence when it comes to finding a successor for the mercurial CEO. Just whom might that be? Well, Jobs claims anyone on the executive team could replace him, but some remain skeptical that any of them would have the charisma to gather the faithful in public at a Macworld Expo keynote and send them off yearning for Apple’s latest and greatest hardware.

When it comes to sales of the iPhone, Jobs confirms, once again, that they still expect to hit the 10 million milestone at the end of the year and, even more intriguing, that the company thinks all those unlocked phones around the world represents a good thing. Just as I suggested, Apple is pleased the thing has become so popular so fast.

The critics? They must still be looking for those mysterious phones that were never activated. I think they might find a few in China if they have some frequent flier miles to cash in.

Unlike previous shareholder meetings, there are no reports of serious disruptions or Steve Jobs arguing with anyone. It sounds as if the event went along without major skirmishes, with not so many revelations. After all, Apple isn’t about to tell you secrets about new products unless it fits in with a strategy that requires early revelations.

The latest speculation, however, is based on the products that Apple says it won’t build and why. Steve Jobs, for example, was quick to attack the quality and interface of existing wireless phones long before the iPhone was known to be a gleam in his eye. That was, of course, an excellent setup, because the iPhone indeed shows up many of those phones for the pathetic devices they are.

I remember one analyst meeting where Apple was asked about whether they’d come out with a cheap PC. They said no and, of course, the Mac mini debuted three months later. Of course, the mini remains in Apple’s arsenal, but it’s nearly invisible when it comes to promotion. I suppose they get enough sales to keep it going, mind you, but I wonder what would happen if they just added a little marketing juice to the mix. Or is the mini on the endangered species list, still, waiting for Apple to kill it.

Or, perhaps, morph the Apple TV into a full-fledged personal computer with media center capabilities. But isn’t that what some of you thought the mini would be at one time? Another possibility is a small home server, since Jobs specifically denied Apple was interested in producing such a product. A word to the wise.

Then there’s the question of whether you’ll ever see Flash support on the iPhone. I know we’ve begun to reduce our dependence on Flash for this site; our banner is now viewable in iPhone. We’ll be doing the same for the other sites over the next few weeks. I once thought that Flash support was inevitable, but Steve Jobs put the kibosh on that.

Perhaps it was also a clarion call for Adobe to come up with a version that lies between the PC edition and the mobile edition, something powerful enough to give you the full Flash experience, but not overextend the limited resources of an iPhone.

I also wonder what Adobe might be thinking now, since it is supposedly a loyal Apple partner, except in areas where Apple competes.

So is Apple prepping some sort of Flash replacement for the iPhone that supports the technology, but isn’t officially licensed from Adobe? That would seem to be an extreme step. Maybe they all want us to use QuickTime for everything and be done with it.

The big question, of course, is whether Wall Street cares about Apple’s reassurances that everything is just perfect. The weight of the world’s financial strains is felt deeply by Wall Street, and I doubt that any company, even if it makes great profits, would show serious stock growth under these circumstances. Of course, the fact that some Wall Street pundits seem to prefer it that way is another story, and not a pleasant one.

Do you remember the Mac IIci? Well, that compact and ultra-efficient box (which first premiered as the IIcx) had sufficient space for three peripheral expansion slots, a cache card slot and room for 8 RAM sticks; the latter is the same as today’s Mac Pro, by the way.

Of course, you can substitute an optical drive for the floppy port of yesteryear, and certainly swap the ports for today’s equivalents if you want to place this product in a 21st century perspective. But bear in mind that all of this was packed in a thick plastic case weighing 13.6 pounds.

Now the rectangular IIci case, basic beige in color, would look decidedly unassuming, and surely retro in today’s marketplace, particularly since Apple has become the benchmark for PCs with high style. But let’s take the argument a little further, though I rather suspect you have a good idea of where I’m going.

Let’s say you take an aluminum box of similar, if perhaps repurposed, dimensions. Within it, you put the basic electronics of an iMac, including the latest Core 2 Duo Intel processor, add space for a second hard drive, two peripheral slots, one of which is occupied by a discrete graphics card, and just four RAM slots. External ports can be identical to the iMac, including both FireWire 400 and FireWire 800. And let’s not forget standard Bluetooth and AirPort, of course.

Now take this relatively small personal computer and sell it for, say, $999 for the base model. You can probably outfit it with additional stuff, such as the second hard drive, more memory and so on and so forth, and top it off at, say, $1,599. All right, I’m guessing.

The point is that you would end up with a perfect expandable computer packing plenty of power; the perfect desktop for both Mac and converted Windows users.

Today, if you want something that vaguely resembles this capability, you end up with an iMac and the built-in display you just don’t need, and, other than RAM, a total lack of internal expansion capability. Certainly the Mac mini doesn’t make it, because it’s underpowered and even adding RAM is painful.

I suppose you could argue that a custom-configured Mac Pro, with a single processor and as few frills as possible, might be a suitable substitute, except that it will still tip the scales at $2,299, and offer far more bulk than you need.

Forget about grabbing sales from existing models? Isn’t a sale a sale?

On a practical level, Apple has, in recent years, kept its model lines distinct, with few overlaps. The MacBook Air is an exception, since it will perhaps cannibalize some MacBook and MacBook Pro sales, although it will likely generate sales from people who merely want a note-book computer strictly for travel, and they’re willing to forego internal wireless networking and the built-in optical drive — and some performance and storage capacity too.

Now certainly the thin and light note-book has traditionally been somewhat of a niche product. Apple made the MacBook Air more mainstream by giving it a full-sized keyboard and the same screen size as the regular MacBook. Perhaps this was the right marketing decision, witness the fact that they are finding it real hard to keep the Airs in stock. Unless you’re lucky enough to find one at your dealer of choice, expect to wait a week or two for one to be delivered to your home or office.

Sure, some of that might be hype, with Apple keeping tight reigns on supplies in order to give the product the semblance of high-demand it might otherwise not deserve. Or maybe they’re doing the best they can, and seriously underestimated the Air’s demand.

But where does that leave the so-called “headless” iMac, the compact expandable desktop? Is there a market for such a product, today, where two-thirds of all Macs sold are note-book models?

That’s a question I am not prepared to answer, but I’ll do a little guesswork. Today, you’re forced into buying a desktop that doesn’t meet your needs, the iMac or Mac Pro, to gain more than entry-level processing power.

On the PC side of the ledger, there are, of course, lots of desktops that meet these basic requirements, being several steps above the low-end and delivering adequate expandability and power.

I find it difficult to believe that Apple, now that it has fleshed out its note-book line, couldn’t find a healthy environment for mid-range expandable desktop. Other than the case design which, in the end, could look like half a Mac Pro to be perfectly simple — though it would look ungainly I suppose — I can’t imagine development costs would be all that high, since all the basic components are already in use in other Macs.

Of course, if Apple can’t sell sufficient quantities, it won’t matter what I say. Would you buy one?