Can one computer be set-up to handle two people working on different projects simultaneously? Can these fantastically powerful machines handle 2 old folks, separately shopping, banking, searching, emailing. Can't we manage on one computer; one UPS; 2 monitors; two keyboards; two mice?
[Re-Titled by Moderator]
Original Title: why not one computer per household?
iMac 24″, macOS 15.5
Although Unix (on which macOS is partially based) is a multi-user system, the Mac’s graphical user interface was never designed to be used in the way you describe.
You can set up separate user accounts for each person using the machine, but only one person will be able to use it at a time.
Although Unix (on which macOS is partially based) is a multi-user system, the Mac’s graphical user interface was never designed to be used in the way you describe.
You can set up separate user accounts for each person using the machine, but only one person will be able to use it at a time.
Re: “… You can set up separate user accounts …”
Here’s an article detailing configuring the “non-simultaneous” setup that Servant of Cats has described:
Add a user or group on Mac – Apple Support (UK)
The pedantically correct and complete answer is yes... but it is not a helpful one.
The reason is that you would require a completely separate Mac for that additional user to remotely log in and use it. That would be accomplished through Screen Sharing: Turn Mac screen sharing on or off - Apple Support. All the actual processing of that fantastically powerful machine would occur on it, while the other effectively functions as a "dumb terminal" to display its screen as its completely separate user uses its input devices (keyboard and mouse). We can do that now.
In short any recent Mac has more than enough processing power to accommodate multiple simultaneous users, all logged into their own separate User Accounts. In fact there already exist separate and independent "users" on even the simplest macOS installation — the others being processes with limited and dedicated functions such as networking, indexing, checking for software updates — various and sundry background tasks all under control of the operating system "root" which, as you might guess, functions as just another "user" but with elevated supervisory tasks.
So it's not so much a question of power. It's a function of its design. A separate Mac theoretically designed for the sole purpose of acting as a "dumb terminal" could incorporate very rudimentary hardware and be commensurately inexpensive, but it would also be an extreme niche product Apple would have zero interest in creating. It's a very 1970-ish idea.
Glad you asked?
Feel free to send Apple feedback about this, but don't hold your breath.
Yes, glad.
In the realm where there are no dumb questions, those of us who are exploring with too little knowledge of the bigger landscape cobble up imaginary solutions to half revealed problems.
All the answers I have received point to the same deficiency in my understanding. Namely the need for a "dumb" but still complex remote terminal.
I get it that my Whole Earth Catalog mindset is often an outdated, even callow, instant gratification monkey trap. In the 70's I still had the youthful confidence that by solving my problems I could solve the world's...and vice a verse.
Little did I know how poor was my grasp on concept of "problem".
If Apple had made a path into that niche I would have followed. I would've arrived at the same spot which led to my inquiry . The underlying trigger for my question was the desire to reduce the number of UPS devices scattered around the house. But it was not the question I asked.
Untrained thinking.
The answers I got set me right, were consistent and helpful.
Community is good.
Mbear46 wrote:
All the answers I have received point to the same deficiency in my understanding. Namely the need for a "dumb" but still complex remote terminal.
These days, personal computers (and smartphones) themselves are often treated like as "dumb but still complex remote terminals." With a Web browser or mobile app being just a "front end" to some system that lives on Web servers, compute servers, and database servers out on the Internet.
I have a long list of consumer products that I wish Apple would produce, because I know they could do it better than anything available in the market. They would also command a significant premium over their competition. 50%, even 100% margin, no problem.
However, even my most optimistic market prediction for such niche products would number in the tens of thousands. Apple is only interested in bringing a product to market with potential for a hundred million. As in, nearly a billion iPads sold to date. Two billion iPhones. Unless it's in that league, even a brilliant concept won't get to its first Keynote presentation to a mid level manager. The Apple of the 1970s is long gone.
Can one iMac be set-up to handle two people working on different projects simultaneously?
