15 Things Apple Should Change in Mac OS X

richi writes "Two of Computerworld's top operating systems editors, a Mac expert and a Windows expert, compare notes on what Apple should reconsider as it develops Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. Mac OS X 10.4, or Tiger, is (in their opinion) a noticeably better operating system than XP or Vista. But it is not perfect. OS X has its own quirks and flaws, and they set out to nail down some of the 'proud nails' for the next release." From the article: "7. Inconsistent User Interface. Open iTunes, Safari and Mail. All three of these programs are Apple's own, and they're among the ones most likely to be used by Mac OS X users. So why do all three of them look different? Safari, like several other Apple-made apps such as the Finder and Address Book, uses a brushed-metal look. iTunes sports a flat gun-metal gray scheme and flat non-shiny scroll bars. Mail is somewhere in between: no brushed metal, lots of gun-metal gray, and the traditional shiny blue scroll bars. Apple is supposed to be the king of good UI, and in many areas, it is. But three widely used apps from the same company with a different look? Sometimes consistency isn't the hobgoblin of little minds."

Comments

Window Management

[MECC]

11. Managing Window Size.
. . .
Here's a thought that's simple and solves about 80% of the problem. What if Apple made both lower corners of Mac windows draggable? What if all four corners were? Either of those minor improvements would be quite welcome.

How about regular click an edge to move the entire window, and control-click-drag anywhere on an edge to resize? (or vice versa)

Re:Window Management

[Total_Wimp]

Oh thank god this has finally come up. As a PC user that sometimes uses a Mac, I've found this frustrating. But any time I've brought it up in casual conversation with Mac people, they've treated me like it's my fault for not understanding the superiority of the Mac UI. I was actually starting to justify in my mind that there must be something wonderful about only using the bottom, right corner and I just had to try harder to understand what it could be. Meditation wasn't helping. Seeing this on the list might save me years of therapy.

TW

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely,

Its bloody crazy and annoying to go all the way to the bottom corner if all you want to do is move the top edge, drives me nuts.

Re:Window Management

[jgalun]

I think Apple has been coasting on its reputation for UI and its success with the iPod UI ever since Jobs came back, rather than any actual work they have been doing with MacOS UI. I used to own a Mac, and thought the interface was fantastic, but I really thought that MacOS X was a step backwards in the interface.

Re:Window Management

[Rocketship Underpant]

I find this is mostly a complaint either from those who haven't quite gotten how the Mac UI works yet, or people who are using poorly-designed apps.

Why, in general, do we even need to resize windows? The answer, 90% of the time, is that the window is the wrong size or shape for its contents. That's what the green "optimize" button is for -- to resize the window automatically to the same size as its contents, and properly implemented, this does just what you want. With Safari, it makes my web browser just wide enough to view the current page without scrolling, and tall enough to show all or as much of the page as possible. With Pages, it resizes the document window to fit the exact size of the document at its current zoom level. I practically never need to resize these windows.

The problem comes mainly with apps that haven't implemented the optimize button properly. The list of offenders includes Camino and all those expensive turds Adobe sells (which break almost all the rules of OS X consistency).

Re:Window Management

[GreatDrok]

"there must be something wonderful about only using the bottom, right corner "

When I got my first Mac (I liked it so much I now have four) it drove me nuts as did having to use the menu bar at the top of the screen. Also things like the mouse cursor disapearing when I scrolled a window or clicking into a window only bringing it forward rather than activating the button I clicked on. These were all things which nearly caused me to dump the platform but over time I learned that there is something wonderful about it. Muscle memory is the key. I have found that I can now do things much more quickly than originally because a flick of the mouse takes me to the top left of the screen where I hit the menu with great accuracy (trackpad too). When I want to resize a window, woosh, straight down to the bottom right corner and zip the window is resized. No danger of hitting close because I decided to widen the window up near the close button. Losing the mouse cursor when you scroll? I wouldn't have it any other way. On Windows it annoys the heck out of me that the mouse doesn't disappear when I scroll.

As more people come to the Mac from Windows, this discussion will keep coming back. The way the Mac does things isn't wrong or broken. Its just different and in time it becomes second nature.

Re:Window Management

[Total_Wimp]

I've often wondered if was just stuborness. It seems like there are a few ideas that are common in PC land and improve on the Mac way of doing things, that Apple just doesn't want to impliment purely out of a competitive spirit. I don't know if this is true, and people who use Macs often tell me I'm wrong, but for things like this I just find it difficult to believe there's any other explanation.

Here's the thing. Linux UIs freely borrow great ideas from many sources. Microsoft is famous for grabbing other peoples' good ideas. Isn't it time for Apple to learn that even their best ideas can be improved over time, even if the improvement was first implimented by another company?

TW

Re:Window Management

[Paradise Pete]

How about regular click an edge to move the entire window, and control-click-drag anywhere on an edge to resize?

And how about actually adding an edge? It's too easy to "miss" the window I'm aiming for and accidentally click the window behind, bringing it to the front. OS 9 Windows had a nice fat border, and this was never a problem. Yes, the current windows look "cleaner," but they don't work as well.

Re:Window Management

[ben there...]

clicking into a window only bringing it forward rather than activating the button I clicked on.

What sucks is that they decided to do the same for Quicktime on Windows. It's the only app that doesn't do anything when you click the play/pause button if the window is in the background. Annoying. Especially for a media app. I couldn't imagine WinAMP, which is designed to take up a portion of the screen, leaving the rest to browser/whatever, and is very frequently in the background, having such poor UI behavior.

Re:Window Management

[great om]

interestingly enough microsoft office for windows has the same mac-like inactive window mouse click feature, and I've always wanted to know why

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Here's a thought that's simple and solves about 80% of the problem. What if Apple made both lower corners of Mac windows >>draggable? What if all four corners were? Either of those minor improvements would be quite welcome.

>How about regular click an edge to move the entire window, and control-click-drag anywhere on an edge to resize? (or vice versa)

This is one aspect where less choice makes it simpler and easier. Younger, computer-savvy users may not notice the difference, but older, less-savvy users will. I've witnessed it firsthand.

Imagine you're hired to tutor an 80 year old couple to teach them how to use their first computer. At some point, you instruct them to resize the window. How? Grab a corner or edge with the mouse. Which corner or edge? Any corner.

On MacOS, that exchange gets cut down to simply, "Grab the lower right hand corner and drag." Simple as that.

Good luck getting the 80-year old to coordinate a CONTROL-click. They have enough difficulty trying to hit the correct mouse button on a two-button mouse (another win for the classic Mac mouse design). Again, in Mac, the instructions are simple: Drag the title bar to move the window. Drag the lower right corner to resize it. No exceptions.

Again, this is immaterial to computer-savvy youngsters who catch on quickly and remember things, but there is another demographic that benefits from this greatly.

Re:Window Management

[dave420]

As with most things in life, I use things because I want them to do what I want, not because I want to do what they want me to. Like my OS. Even if it's all fucked up, I want it to work how I expect. There shouldn't be a learning curve with your desktop, just like there is no learning curve on a real-life desktop. You don't reach for that pen and suddenly it shoots off 50cm to the right, starts hovering in mid-air with a weird blue glow around it, quickly followed by all the contents of my desk miraculously re-arranging themselves 20cm above the top of the desk, Dana Barrat style.

The problem isn't that the users don't "get" OSX. OSX is just an operating system. You're talking about it like it's the hardest quantum theory any mere mortal could never hope to understand. I'm pretty sure I have the cognitive ability to understand what the buttons do. I just don't think "optimise" is such a great idea for resizing windows. I want to resize the window, but the UI has to step in to do it for me, as I can't be trusted? Is that it? If I want to make a window as big as my screen, shit, I paid for the OS and the software in question - I should be able to do that if I so wish.

I'm not having a go at you, I just think that you're arguing from your own perspective. I've been using computers for decades, and there ARE reasons you want to maximise/minimise your UI however you please. You blame it on the apps, but doesn't change the fact the GUI is not allowing you to fix it manually. If I wanted an authoritarian figure telling me I, or some software I've bought, is doing something stupid, I'd get some input from my wife. I don't need my GUI to tell me what to do, snatching my balls in the process :)

Re:Window Management

[rs79]

How bout it's an option?

I can see where some people want to only use and get used to the bottom right to resize windows and that's fine but I find that to be the single most annoying thing about OSX.

Just reading the FA, without thinking, I resized three sides to that browser window so it was readable by moving each of three sized to exactly where I wanted it.

Sure this is not for everyone (I guess) but it seems silly to not allow/enable it if that's what I want to do.

Note to his Steviness: please fix.

Re:Window Management

[BasilBrush]

I guess the reason you can't resize from edges is because OS X windows don't have borders, other than the title bar at the top. Clicking the very righthand most edge of most windows for example would be a click on the scrollbar. The bottom right hand corner is available for resizing because it's often an unused space between the two scrollbars, and if not it's on a window that isn't maximally occupied anyway.

They could make a border all the way around windows, but it would make for a much heavier design, like Windows and Linux has. Is the feature worth compromising the design for? Particularly when Zoom does the common resizing task for you anyway.

Re:Window Management

[tclgeek]

I think "coasting on its reputation for UI" is probably a good thing. In fact, I think this "coasting" has proven that eye candy doesn't really matter. People say "hey, mail looks different from safari looks different from itunes looks different from finder ...." and yet the mac is still the easiest system out there as far as overall usability is concerned.

The conclusion I draw from this is, Apple still knows a thing or two about usability. They may toss a few pebbles in the path along the way WRT to mixing themes, doing a few small things badly (such as the mechanism to resize windows) and so on, but overall they're still better.

For those reasons, I kinda hope they do coast on their reputation for a while longer and not keep messing with the winning formula (think Coke Classic if anyone reading this is old enough to remember that fiasco).

Re:Window Management

[mblase]

But any time I've brought it up in casual conversation with Mac people, they've treated me like it's my fault for not understanding the superiority of the Mac UI. I was actually starting to justify in my mind that there must be something wonderful about only using the bottom, right corner and I just had to try harder to understand what it could be. Meditation wasn't helping. Seeing this on the list might save me years of therapy.

If I want to expand a Mac window in the down-and-left direction, I can get the same results by putting my mouse just to the left of the lower-right corner, moving the entire window to a new position, and then dragging the corner down-and-right. It only takes me one more click of the mouse, and not much more effort.

It's really a matter of preference. Six of one, half-dozen of the other, you get the idea. Apple doesn't make the lower-left corner resizable, I would guess, for the same reason they don't make the left, right and bottom edges resizable: it's less cluttered and potentially confusing to resize from just one point.

It's hard to appreciate the value of this unless you've watched very old or very young family members with shaky hands (and shaky memories) trying to manipulate things on-screen.

Re:Window Management

[n2art2]

I paid for the OS and the software in question - I should be able to do that if I so wish

 
To use the car analogy. . .
 
I paid for this Car and the speedometer in question - I should be able to make this car go 300 mph and fly if I so wish.
 
OK for one, you didn't buy the OS, you bought the computer and the OS came installed on it (It is a mac we are talking about) and you get whatever they make. If they make a toaster that only toasts toast, and you want to try and cram a bagel into it, don't get mad at the manufacture for not making that toaster to fit your bagel. Instead buy a toaster that is designed to fit a bagel. So use your spending dollars and buy what you want, for what you want, instead of buying something that doesn't do what you want, and then getting upset because the manufacture didn't design it the way you wanted.
 
If you think it is doing something stupid, just remember who paid money for it. And realize that you are the real idiot. So get over it.

Re:Window Management

[masklinn]

The answer, 90% of the time, is that the window is the wrong size or shape for its contents. That's what the green "optimize" button is for -- to resize the window automatically to the same size as its contents, and properly implemented, this does just what you want.

Yeah, and the 10% left you're fucked, because the zoom button doesn't do what you want it to do. Case in point: Cocoa Emacs, the zoom button just changes the height, it's utterly useless.

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you forget that even with Windows there is (or in your case was) a learning curve.

Re:Window Management

[aetherworld]

clicking into a window only bringing it forward rather than activating the button I clicked on.

Umm, you can activate Click Through though. Then you can directly click the button.

Re:Window Management

[Moofie]

"but doesn't change the fact the GUI is not allowing you to fix it manually"

But you CAN fix it manually. Lower right corner. Size the window however you want. What's wrong with that?

Re:Window Management

[oohshiny]

That's what the green "optimize" button is for -- to resize the window automatically to the same size as its contents

Except in iTunes, it goes between whatever size iTunes was and a tiny player window. In other apps, it makes the app full screen. In yet other apps, it toggles between two different sizes, neither of which is right.

The list of offenders includes Camino and all those expensive turds Adobe sells (which break almost all the rules of OS X consistency).

Then, apparently, Apple's applications are "turds" as well, because they are just as inconsistent.

Furthermore, if programmers are frequently inconsistent about how they implement something, then there is something wrong with the API. It's perfectly possible to come up with an API that would ensure that the green button works consistently, it's just that OSX fails to use such an API. So, no matter which way you look at it, it's Apple's fault.

Personally, I think they should simply make the green button "maximize"; that's what most users want; I never have a use for "change size to be something the application thinks may be a good size".

Re:Window Management

[DeQuincey]

Again, this is immaterial to computer-savvy youngsters who catch on quickly and remember things, but there is another demographic that benefits from this greatly.

That explains a lot.

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't reach for that pen and suddenly it shoots off 50cm to the right, starts hovering in mid-air with a weird blue glow around it, quickly followed by all the contents of my desk miraculously re-arranging themselves 20cm above the top of the desk, Dana Barrat style.

But what if you wanted it to do that. Didn't you just say that it should do what you want?

Re:Window Management

[nra1871]

I prefer the lower right corner method. Soooooo many times on Windows I mean to click something else, and accidentally grab the window border and expand it. This happens to me all the time, and it drives me nuts. Having one spot means I hardly ever make that mistake on OS X.

Re:Window Management

[angel'o'sphere]

Well,

ctrl is the helper key to make a right mouse botton click, so you might want to use alt/option instead. However: if you can not see that the edge of the screen allows for resizing (by the use of a helper key) its wrong designed. So just make it like windows and have in all 4 corners active for resizing.

angel'o'sphere

Re:Window Management

[Total_Wimp]

Even windows without borders have edges. Occasionally you'll find borderless windows in the MS Windows world, and in those cases you usually just drag the edge.

(clarification: a lot of times apps that have borderless windows don't want you to resize at all. Examples include splash screens on app startup. There are, however, some apps out there that make regular, resizable windows that happen to be borderless.)

TW

Re:Window Management

[The One and Only]

The problem isn't that the users don't "get" OSX. OSX is just an operating system. You're talking about it like it's the hardest quantum theory any mere mortal could never hope to understand.

Quite true. The problem isn't not learning OS X, the problem is not unlearning Windows. "Take up the whole fucking screen with this window" makes sense in a GUI that's based on tiling (and, despite overlapping windows having been introduced in W95, Windows is still more of a tiling GUI--no differentiation between windows and applications, menu bars in every window, etc.). The Mac GUI isn't about tiling, so the "take up the whole fucking screen with this window" functionality doesn't mesh as well with the rest of the GUI. When I work in Windows, I always want to "take up the whole fucking screen with this window" because that keeps the menu bar in a predictable location. Windows, in effect, isn't really a single multitasking workspace so much as an implementation of multiple workspaces, with one application/window/form per workspace. The motivation behind wanting Mac OS X to "take up the whole fucking screen with this window" stems partly from being stuck in the Windows singletasking frame of mind, and partly from boneheaded software vendors who design the same UI for all OS's so that Photoshop or Office has to take up the whole fucking screen by design. (Mac-only software often has a minimalist UI that can peacefully coexist with other windows and applications, unless it actually requires that much space. Tasks that are usually done with space-sucking toolbars get put into Inspector windows and such.)

Nonetheless, there's nothing stopping you from making a single Mac OS X window take up the whole fucking screen. Just hide the dock, move your window into the top left corner, and resize it until it takes up the entire screen. It's just a pointless and silly task in the Mac GUI so there's no easy shortcut for it.

Re:Window Management

[SoulRider]

So in other words you want OS X to act like windows because that is what you are used to. Get over yourself. How is resizing a window to fit the content "telling you what to do"? This sounds like what should happen. I personally take offense to the min/max button, how dare they take over my entire screen and hide all the other windows when I just want a little more real estate in my browser.

Re:Window Management

[NormalVisual]

As Picasso said, "good artists copy, great artists steal." Part of what advances knowledge is building on that which came before, and Apple would do well to understand that. Case in point - it took them *forever* to produce a two-button mouse, even though the rest of the world had long before learned the advantages of such a device. It used to be pretty annoying when you'd spend $3K for a nice shiny new Mac and then still have to buy a decent mouse for it.

Apple definitely has a good UI, but they really need to get past the "not invented here" mentality in order to file some of the sharp edges off.

Re:Window Management

[giorgiofr]

Well then why did they bother to put a maximize button in Windows at all - just move the window into the corner and resize it... Guess what, people want buttons to make things happen as easily as possible.

Re:Window Management

[larkost]

This is not a right-wrong thing. It is a how-does-it-work-for-you thing. I am primarily Mac user and get very frustrated with the windows behavior because it wastes too much space. I am used to having a lot of windows open, and find that it is difficult to multitask in Windows because the predominant assumption there is that you are using one application at a time.

I use drag-and-drop as my main way of moving things around (as opposed cut-and-paste which is the main model on Windows), and I find myself constantly frustrated on Windows because it is just less setup with this in mind.

I hear a lot of Windows users just assume that the Windows model is always the right one, and have to say that this is not necessarily the case.

Re:Window Management

[Listen Up]

The problem isn't that the users don't "get" OSX. OSX is just an operating system. You're talking about it like it's the hardest quantum theory any mere mortal could never hope to understand.

Remember, half of the human population is below average.

Re:Window Management

[gumbi west]

I disagree that desks are completely intuitive (no sarcasm). One of my current desks has a locking system that it took me a while to figure out, and certainly the locations of information in the file drawer aren't "obvious" as soon as you sit down.

If you teach someone to drive with the accelerator on the left and brake on the right, they will take some adjustment time to get used to the new plan, but will eventually find their way. The point is that after having used both the two OSs for a while I've found that I vastly prefer OS X.

I can't stand the maximize button on windows (I have a 22 inch monitor, when would I ever want to do what it does?), the start menu is horribly inefficient and counter intuitive (a) I often have to hover over several things just so to get to the app I want, and have a hard time finding it when I'm not at my computer (b) the old standard: what's the first thing you click when you want to shut down? The only good thing in the bar is the quick launch.

I've also found that I just don't resize or move apps as often on OS X, I don't know why, but it's just easier to get from app to app and they just start placed better and with a better size. there is also the fact that TeXShop is only on OS X and I just can't write without it, but that's just for me.

Re:Window Management

[noidentity]

Mac OS X does have a manual window resize box (as well as a title bar to move the window); the point was that by having a half-way intelligent auto sizing operation, the need to use this manual resize box is reduced, so the need for four or eight resize regions (corners, edges) is probably unnecessary and not worth the added complexity.

Re:Window Management

[MECC]

I find this is mostly a complaint either from those who haven't quite gotten how the Mac UI works yet

Been using MacOS since before system 6.

or people who are using poorly-designed apps.

Using an app called "Finder". I often want to change a window size depending on what I'm doing with the window - sorting contents based on name, type, or date -- or -- previewing images or movies and various sizes and also sorting. The 'green' button doesn't really help in cases where I'd like to make a window's preview smaller to scan for content which might be spotted in a smaller preview icon to scan more files in a window, as opposed to larger preview icons to see more in depth. The case will depend to a large extent on what's being done at any given time, and individual preference. Not that a modified click-n-drag would make a huge difference, but having the choice would at times make for a better perceived work flow.

Also, windows users would find the modified (control or alt) click-n-drag (or at least the option to change it) very satisfying, and it need not change the lower right hand corner convention for the aged users desiring a unambiguous directive for resizing a window. There is something to be said for the somewhat individually organic process of managing windows. It just seems like a good idea to support individual variation. I do agree that good implementation of the green button should cover most resize needs. I think the rational for including a lower right hand corner resize handle could be the same rational for modified click-n-drag to resize as well.

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they need to add a three-click system. 1st click: user-defined, 2nd click: optimized, 3rd click: full screen.

Re:Window Management

[lostatredrock]

So your suggestion would be to screw the 90% so your 10% works better? At some point you need to say I have x number of buttons these x options are going to be the most useful so I am going to include these x options and the 10% or whatever of the population that wants another option is just going to have to do it manually.

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

"Grab the lower right hand corner and drag."

Windows: "Grab any corner and drag." - Hey! I just cut three words!

Windows: "Grab any corner or edge and drag." - Still one word less!

"Grab a corner or edge with the mouse." - Hey, doesn't that 'a' imply 'any'?

"Drag the title bar to move the window." - Yup, works in windows, what the F?

And why do people think 80 years olds are dumb and can't learn? In my experience those octogenarians that want to learn it, learn it.

Re:Window Management

[Thrudheim]

I hear a lot of Mac fanboys talking about how you have to "unlearn everything from Windows to use a Mac", but no explanation to WHY I'd want to put that much effort into it

Your use of the term "Mac fanboys" doesn't lend much credibility to the claim that you really tried to learn the Mac. If you like Windows, then don't bother switching and go on your merry way. It's not too hard to come up with a list of criticisms of Windows, however, that make switching worthwhile for a lot of people, even it if takes some time to learn the "Mac way."

Explain to me the benefit of having a million windows open on a screen while you're trying to work on just one.

Not that hard to think of some reasons. You might want to look at the contents of one window while typing on the other or easily drag contents from one window to another. You might want to be able to leave a process running in one app and observe its progress while working in another app. Multi-tasking you know.

You complain about "space-sucking toolbars", but if you're not maximizing the window anyway, aren't you wasting space?

Huh? No. The other space can get used by other apps instead of a bunch of white space by the app that you maximized.

Everything that requires one click or keypress in Windows required clicking all over the screen on the Mac.

Funny, that's how I feel using Windows, since I don't have all the key commands committed to memory. I hardly touch the mouse when using my Mac (something that is important to me due to repetitive stress injury).

I just don't get it.

Agreed. I just don't get why anyone would prefer Windows, but to each his own.

Re:Window Management

[The One and Only]

Because in Windows, maximizing is a useful (necessary) task that you always have to do, so putting it in a button makes sense there. This is not true of Mac OS X.

Re:Window Management

[macshome]

For a long time in the Mac OS you have been able to turn on full keyboard access to the GUI. In Mac OS X you can even script the GUI to do your bidding. It's all just a system preference setting.

Re:Window Management

[dynamo52]

For those reasons, I kinda hope they do coast on their reputation for a while longer and not keep messing with the winning formula (think Coke Classic if anyone reading this is old enough to remember that fiasco).

The difference is that Coke is used for one very specific purpose (OK, maybe two). People want and expect consistency in an ingestible product. For something as complex and multipurpose as an OS, constant development and improvement should be the goal.

Re:Window Management

[wiredlogic]

and, despite overlapping windows having been introduced in W95, Windows is still more of a tiling GUI

Huh? Overlapping windows were introduced in Windows 2.0. You could be forgiven for not knowing this but omitting Windows 3.0-3.11 exposes your general ignorance on the topic. Even if you were born in '95 (which is a scary possibility on /.) you should know better.

Re:Window Management

[JonathanBoyd]

Something you might find useful: Holding down command while clicking on a background window often lets you manipulate it without activating the window. E.g. in Safari, if I'm reading one window and want to check a detail in another while keeping my current one in front, I can drag the background scrollbar (or click on the arrows) while holding command and it will scroll without moving to the front. If I'm reading in Safari and want to check my mail without switching to Mail, I can just command click on the 'Get Mail' button and it will check in the background, leaving my Safari window on top. You can even drag windows about in the background using this method. One note though: if you command click on a link in a background window, it'll open in a new tab in the foreground window, though this can be advantageous at times, particularly if you use different windows for different categories of tabs.

Re:Window Management

[The One and Only]

I don't know if you've noticed, but most menu options in Mac OS X have keyboard shortcuts, and often buttons do as well above and beyond pressing return for the default button. The benefit of multiple windows is this: when you're multitasking, you can see everything you need--when you're singletasking, your eyes naturally focus on the one window you are using anyway. With the Windows GUI, this multitasking advantage is sacrificed for no real gain in singletasking. (You can also note that most applications that tend themselves toward singletasking--Final Cut Pro, for instance--by design take up the entire screen anyway. XCode can easily become a screen-filling IDE if you want to use it that way as well, since in editor mode, the main XCode window's optimize button actually does maximize.)

Re:Window Management

[walt-sjc]

An example of this is trying to use your macbook while waiting for a flight (or on a flight). I use a number of X11 applications (xterm being the most common, because the apple terminal app is horrible) which really wants a 3 button mouse. You frequently don't have room (or a surface) to break out a separate mouse, and the keyboard shortcuts SUCK.
Try a middle-button dragging operation sometime for a horrible user experience.

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? No. The other space can get used by other apps instead of a bunch of white space by the app that you maximized.

It seems that you think I only run notepad or talk in instant messages? Because those are the only things I run that have any noticeable amount of white space when they are maximized. Typically it's a browser, image or code editor. All of each are filled with information I would like to look at with a single glance.

Re:Window Management

[The Spoonman]

Your use of the term "Mac fanboys" doesn't lend much credibility to the claim that you really tried to learn the Mac. If you like Windows, then don't bother switching and go on your merry way. It's not too hard to come up with a list of criticisms of Windows, however, that make switching worthwhile for a lot of people, even it if takes some time to learn the "Mac way."

Unfortunately, the criticisms typically come from people who don't know what they're talking about. These same people then try switching elsewhere and staying there rather than admit they had made a bad choice. I purchased a Powerbook and used it as my primary, exclusive machine for over a year and still had to fight with it day in and day out. I purchased it to try out some new technology and sold it because it wasn't worth the trouble. I gained nothing but decreased efficiency.

Not that hard to think of some reasons. You might want to look at the contents of one window while typing on the other or easily drag contents from one window to another. You might want to be able to leave a process running in one app and observe its progress while working in another app. Multi-tasking you know.

Okay, now give me reasons that aren't random, individual exceptions. Everything you listed are things that are special occurances and easily (more easily) done on a Windows box than the Mac if for no other reason than the Mac expects these individual, random things to be the norm. I can click one button to give me more space, then one other to take it back fullscreen. On the Mac, I have to click, drag, resize, move, twiddle. Not more convenient in anyway.

Huh? No. The other space can get used by other apps instead of a bunch of white space by the app that you maximized.

Huh? If I maximized it, it's because there is no whitespace.

Funny, that's how I feel using Windows, since I don't have all the key commands committed to memory. I hardly touch the mouse when using my Mac (something that is important to me due to repetitive stress injury).

I can understand that. It is pretty difficult to remember that Alt-F brings up the File menu, Alt-V the View menu. If only there was a simple mnemonic people could use to remember such things. Or, better yet, somehow indicate the letter you need to press right there in the word on the screen.

Agreed. I just don't get why anyone would prefer Windows, but to each his own.

Yeah, performance, stability, ease of use, security, application availability, flexibility, hardware compatibility. I can see how those would be difficult for someone to get used to coming from the Mac world.

Re:Window Management

[Brendtron 5000]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the "Windows singletasking frame of mind."

I regularly work with several SSH sessions, text editors and web browsers open at the same time on my dual monitor system. There really isn't a big problem multitasking in Windows. I've also got all of the menu bars visible at all times without having to switch window focus. I'd say that's an advantage.

If I do have too many windows open at once to fit them all on the screen, I find the Windows/Gnome/KDE style taskbar to be a far superior solution than the information poor dock, as mentioned in the article.

I'm really just not sure what you're getting at here -- it's no more difficult to multitask in Windows than in any other OS, from what I've experienced.

Re:Window Management

[walt-sjc]

OK, then make it a configurable option, but give me the option. The same thing can be said for including three mouse buttons on the macbooks - make them all act like a single mouse button by default, but give me the option of making them act independently (can even make it mighty-mouse like so it doesn't look like three buttons.)

It's hard for users when companies dictate how users are allowed to use their product. What is user-friendly for one person is a total PITA for another.

Re:Window Management

[JonathanBoyd]

Explain to me the benefit of having a million windows open on a screen while you're trying to work on just one. You complain about "space-sucking toolbars", but if you're not maximizing the window anyway, aren't you wasting space?

Because sometimes you need information in another window for the task being performed in the current one. Sometimes it's nice to be able to keep an eye on something in another window, like IM or mail or TV. Sometimes you want to drag things from another window into your current one. I prepare my church announcement sheet each week in CorelDraw and I greatly dislike tabbing back and forth between it and Outlook to get the announcements people have emailed in. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work too well when it's not full screen, so I have to live it. Actually CorelDraw just has a terrible interface anyway, especially when it comes to manipulating text. Breaks every convention I'm used to. Which other program selects text from the bottom third of the cursor?!

Apple, in their infinite wisdom, does not offer you the choice of using the keyboard for much more than simply typing.

That was fairly inaccurate in the classic Mac OS days, but M=OS X has had full keyboard access for years. You can control the cursor, jump between interface elements and even define custom keyboard shortcuts for any application. It's not turned on my default, but it only take a click to change that (or holding down a certain key combination).

Re:Window Management

[The Spoonman]

No, can't. You can do SOME things with the keyboard by enabling the Accessibility options, but not EVERYTHING. I've owned a Mac, you can't just make stuff up to try and win an argument.

Re:Window Management

[walt-sjc]

I work multi-platform. I use Linux, Windows, and OS X. The differences can be very frustrating, and OS X is the least like the other two. I really don't care if Apple wants to continue to use and encourage a certain UI design, but please PLEASE give us configurable options to change the default behavior to be more like the other guys.

Re:Window Management

[ProfessionalCookie]

I've always been a fan of "middle-click" to drag a window by clicking anywhere on it. Oh yeah, and when dragging don't change the focus! There's a pretty responsive developer the makes a program called Zooom. If Apple doesn't do it, I already bought my $4.95 license. (discalimer: no relation)

Re:Window Management

[The Spoonman]

most menu options in Mac OS X have keyboard shortcuts

I sold my Mac about a year and a half ago, so I won't be checking. However, if there were really that many options that had shortcuts would I be complaining about the lack of them? 10% is not most.

when you're multitasking, you can see everything you need

I don't need to see everything to multitask. The only time I might need to actually see what's not the foreground window is if I need to keep continuous track of what's going on back there, but that's the rare exception. I keep my apps maximized because I want to actually see what's going on in the app I'm using. It makes no sense to have less visibility to an app you're using just so you can see the other app is still there.

Re:Window Management

[The One and Only]

However, if there were really that many options that had shortcuts would I be complaining about the lack of them?

If you never bothered to learn them, then yes.

I keep my apps maximized because I want to actually see what's going on in the app I'm using.

I never have any window that isn't showing everything it can. I only get scrollbars when the content doesn't fit on the screen. Actually seeing what's going on in the app you're using is not a problem--all maximization does that optimization doesn't is fill your screen with blank space.

Re:Window Management

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

An example of this is trying to use your macbook while waiting for a flight (or on a flight). I use a number of X11 applications (xterm being the most common, because the apple terminal app is horrible) which really wants a 3 button mouse.

Congratulations. You're one of the .000000001% of people who ever used a X11 application on a mac, while not having a three button mouse available, and while kknowing about and need ing the third mouse button features. I don't think it is reasonable to redesign the system in such a way that makes it harder for the novice and average user in order to accommodate such a rarity. Also, from the testing I've seen, with a trackpad the key combinations actually save time once you learn them since you don't have to move your non-dominant hand from the keyboard or move your hands at all. As a result, adding more buttons to a laptop only helps learnability, not overall usability. If you're using X11 applications with the third mouse button option, on a portable, learnability is probably not as important to you.

Re:Window Management

[The One and Only]

Yeah, I never actually used Windows much until either 98 or 2000 came out, so I'm fuzzy on the details of earlier versions.

Re:Window Management

[Thrudheim]

Most web pages don't consume anywhere near all the horizontal space on a screen for most widescreen displays. Likewise, I don't think that is it desirable for my text editor to grab any horizontal space that is not actually going to be used to display text. Image editor, yes, then I use every inch of screen space.

There is nothing in the Mac GUI that prevents you from using the whole screen for a single app, it's just that the default behavior of the green button is to grab only the space needed to display what is in the window, rather than automatically take up the whole screen even it if is not needed.

Re:Window Management

[arifirefox]

I think it would be too embarrassing to see "Cupertino: start your copiers." Too bad ego is more important than what is best for users, even if you can't claim you came up with the idea first.

Re:Window Management

[The Spoonman]

Because sometimes...Sometimes it's nice...Sometimes you want

Exactly my point...sometimes. If it's only sometimes, why is it the norm? Wouldn't it make more sense if the OS worked the way you did most times, and could account for the sometimes? Or, does it make more sense that it acts the way you need sometimes...all the time? I was asking for NORMAL occurances, not sometimes.

but M=OS X has had full keyboard access for years

No, it doesn't. Some things can be done with the keyboard, even with Accessibility turned on. Again, some does not equal all.

Re:Window Management

[ceoyoyo]

Out of curiosity, why don't you like Terminal.app?

Also, have you ever seen a three button built in mouse in any notebook?

I know a lot of people don't like it, but tapping the track pad works perfectly for me. With the addition of two-finger tapping for a right mouse button I'm perfectly happy.

Re:Window Management

[The One and Only]

I regularly work with several SSH sessions, text editors and web browsers open at the same time on my dual monitor system. There really isn't a big problem multitasking in Windows.

First, you have a dual monitor system, so you can show two workspaces at once. Secondly, it would probably be slightly more easy to do that on a Mac--although you can still get Windows to show multiple windows per workspace, doing so makes the maximize button superflous and an optimize button (as in Mac OS X) more useful.

If I do have too many windows open at once to fit them all on the screen, I find the Windows/Gnome/KDE style taskbar to be a far superior solution than the information poor dock, as mentioned in the article.

The dock is used to launch and switch applications, not windows. (There's a distinction between applications and windows on Mac OS X.) Exposé is used to switch windows, and works far better than the taskbar.

Re:Window Management

[ceoyoyo]

So how are you screwed? There's still a way to resize the window to whatever size you want.

Re:Window Management

[nine-times]

I know what you mean, but I've come to think that it's not entirely fair. Apple does borrow/copy things from other operating systems, but there's also a different design philosophy going on, which leads to different choices.

Once upon a time, I felt the way you do. I used Windows exclusively. Every time I used Linux or MacOS, I thought, "Why do they have to do things their own little way? Why can't they just do it the normal way?!" Of course, by "normal way" I was imagining the way Microsoft did things. As I used more and different systems, I came to realize that each UI had some sort of reason for being the way it was, and each fostered a slightly different way of looking at and interacting with computers.

The one-button mouse, for example: the way people talk about the whole thing, you'd think Apple engineers just couldn't figure out how to build the thing. Really, though, it was a decision that a mouse was not meant to be an independent control device, but just a pointer. It's a way of looking at the UI differently, that says the keyboard is for complicated things, and the mouse only serves as a simple point/select device. There's a certain simplicity and elegance to the idea. Enough people wanted a two-button mouse, so Apple finally released the Mighty Mouse, which is capable of being either a one-button or multiple-button mouse, so that the simplicity of the system isn't necessarily compromised, but users are given more options. This is the way that Apple works, and once you get used to the whole thing, it does have pleasant results. For example, you don't get weird options hidden in context menus that you might never be able to find unless you already knew it was there.

Re:Window Management

[The Spoonman]

If you never bothered to learn them, then yes.

No, that's the kind of thinking I'd expect from the alternate OS crowd. Bitch and complain that Windows works wonky, but it's really the PICNIC. If the shortcuts were there (and there are SOME, but not all things are shortcutted), I would have learned them. But, they're not.

I never have any window that isn't showing everything it can. I only get scrollbars when the content doesn't fit on the screen. Actually seeing what's going on in the app you're using is not a problem--all maximization does that optimization doesn't is fill your screen with blank space.

Then, you need some new apps because I've got apps maximized on all three of my monitors right now, and not one is showing whitespace.

Re:Window Management

[rjung2k]

"It seems like there are a few ideas that are common in PC land and improve on the Mac way of doing things, that Apple just doesn't want to impliment purely out of a competitive spirit."

In the case of the zoom/maximize button, I think the correct answer is "Apple doesn't do it Microsoft's way because Microsoft's way is effing retarded."

Re:Window Management

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

As Picasso said, "good artists copy, great artists steal." Part of what advances knowledge is building on that which came before, and Apple would do well to understand that.

Yeah, okay. Hopefully Apple knows their UI is not perfect and is willing to borrow to make it better. They seem willing as they're incorporating virtual desktops and many other features from other systems.

Case in point - it took them *forever* to produce a two-button mouse, even though the rest of the world had long before learned the advantages of such a device.

Yeah, and by watching others Apple was also able to see all the disadvantages of such a system. Usability experts the world around wish they could go back in time and make one button mice the standard and simplify their lives. One of the most common interface problems is that people click the wrong button in some instance, or both buttons simultaneously with random results. For novice users, a single button is a much, much, much better option. More than that, the end results of the standardization on one or multiple button mice makes a big difference on the software ecosystem. Given that novice users are better with one button, lets look at advanced users. On Windows and on OS X I use the same four button trackball with a scroll wheel. On both systems the primary button does the same job and the third and fourth buttons are user assignable to tasks I commonly use. The only difference is the second mouse button. Is it more usable on Windows or OS X? On OS X, it is assigned to a series of services and scripts I chose. It is up to me to decide, on a per-app or and/or global basis what is available. On Windows, this app is full of functions that the application designer chose, many of which I never want or use. Even in applications like Wordpad, this key is assigned to functions I will never, ever use, while in OS X and textedit, this button provides me with word counts, grammar checker, translation between languages, some perl scripts I commonly apply to text, and other options I've chosen. Basically, it frees up one more button for me to assign, and I need it because otherwise I'd need a mouse with 5 buttons. My third button activates expose to quickly choose apps and my fourth button activates my dashboard widgets or my virtual desktops, depending on the context. So for me, a power user, the one button default gives me one more useful button.

And what else does this affect? Have you ever used scripting applications, or alternative input devices like tablets, braille boards, spoken interfaces, etc.? Because OS X only has one button by default, all developers code to that standard and all functions are available to users of all these devices. With Windows applications, it is not uncommon for poor developers to place functionality for an application only in a right-click menu, making it difficult or impossible to access using these alternative interfaces. It encourages poor development practices.

Okay, so now lets look at Apple's multi button mouse. They have learned from the mistakes of others. By default, it works as a one button mouse so all the advantages listed above apply. In addition it works as a multi-button mouse for power users. Better yet, this change occurs in software, so a mac in your living room can have a mouse that is one button for the kids and multi-button for the grown ups or experts all without switching and hardware around and automatically set up on a per-account basis. All the benefits with none of the negatives. The only question is what about laptops? Will they make multiple buttons and option there as well? I doubt it, but it is possible. The reason is, when you use a desktop with a mouse, you either have both hands on the keyboard or one on the keyboard and one on the mouse. In the latter configuration, having to use chording with the keyboard slows a user down as they must move their hand. On a laptop, however, both hands are already in place and once you learn how it is (according to usability studies) faster to use the trackpad button with chording than it is to have multiple buttons that make you move your off hand. They might find other ways to use the trackpad to provide this, but I doubt it will be physical buttons.

Re:Window Management

[Brendtron 5000]

You're right about dual monitors -- does make it easier. The main thing is that it's resolution dependent, and not so much a problem with the OS.

I can fit 3 SSH windows and web browser on my 1400x1050 resolution laptop, without having to switch windows at all. On an old G3 clamshell laptop (or any other low-res screen), you can fit one window max. A different operating system isn't going to help you with this problem. If you have a small screen, you will have to switch windows back and forth. Pretty hard to multitask with that.

Exposé is pretty good, yes, but the taskbar isn't bad either. And I still say that at a glance it gives me more information about what I am doing with my computer.

My problem is with the statement that Windows is a singletasking OS. If you believe that, you'd probably have to say the same thing about Linux with Gnome or KDE, which both follow a lot of the Windows design paradigm. It's perfectly possible with any of these systems to have more than one window on the screen at the same time, without overlap.

Really, I just don't get how this is singletasking.

Re:Window Management

[Thrudheim]

I purchased a Powerbook and used it as my primary, exclusive machine for over a year and still had to fight with it day in and day out. I purchased it to try out some new technology and sold it because it wasn't worth the trouble. I gained nothing but decreased efficiency.

Okay. Of course, I have no problem with someone giving the Mac a real shot and not liking it. That's a matter of individual preference.

I can understand that. It is pretty difficult to remember that Alt-F brings up the File menu, Alt-V the View menu. If only there was a simple mnemonic people could use to remember such things. Or, better yet, somehow indicate the letter you need to press right there in the word on the screen.

Nice troll. Of course, you missed the point, which was that one does not have to "click all over the place" to get things done on a Mac.

Yeah, performance, stability, ease of use, security, application availability, flexibility, hardware compatibility. I can see how those would be difficult for someone to get used to coming from the Mac world.

Now you are mostly spouting nonsense. Stability, ease of use, security are assets of the Mac. As for the other things, performance is a wash, as it depends on what metric you are using. Does it bother me that Apple does not license the Mac OS to other hardware vendors? No, but I can understand why many people don't like it. Of course, more apps are available for Windows overall, but good apps are available on the Mac for most functions, especially what that average user needs.

Re:Window Management

[The One and Only]

If the shortcuts were there (and there are SOME, but not all things are shortcutted), I would have learned them. But, they're not.

They're right up in the goddamn menu.

Then, you need some new apps because I've got apps maximized on all three of my monitors right now, and not one is showing whitespace.

Yes--either because you're using Windows, and the Windows GUI wastes space, or because you're using the sort of apps that would maximize themselves on Mac OS X anyway.

Re:Window Management

[macshome]

So what is it that you are trying to do exactly? I'm not trying to just make stuff up here. I can access the Menu bar, I can access the Dock, I can change window focus, and I can hit every dialog control and button I can find. I can even make custom keystrokes for the OS and individual apps.

Like I said, I'm not trying to make stuff up. If I'm wrong please let me know where so I'm not wrong anymore. I just don't see what you are getting at...

Re:Window Management

[walt-sjc]

Out of curiosity, why don't you like Terminal.app?

Because it didn't behave correctly. Exactly how, I can't say because I haven't used it in years since I always use xterm along with other X apps.

Also, have you ever seen a three button built in mouse in any notebook?

Yes. IBM / Lenovo has had them for MANY MANY years, and there are others.

I know a lot of people don't like it, but tapping the track pad works perfectly for me. With the addition of two-finger tapping for a right mouse button I'm perfectly happy.

And as I already stated, that doesn't work for a click-drag operation.

Re:Window Management

[The One and Only]

It's singletasking in that if you maximize your windows, you're switching between single-task workspaces instead of switching between applications/windows as you would in Mac OS X. If you don't maximize your windows, then the Windows GUI (which is designed to favor maximizing your windows) is inefficient compared to the Mac OS X GUI (which is designed to favor showing many windows at once, only taking up the whole screen when an app really needs to). Windows doesn't really even support such constructs as "multiple windows per application"--either they fake it or you have to run a whole new instance of the program to get another window. (This, for instance, is probably the motivating force behind tabbed browsing--while it helps even in Mac OS X, it's even more crucial in Windows as a hack for the "single window per app" restriction).

Re:Window Management

[JonathanBoyd]

Exactly my point...sometimes. If it's only sometimes, why is it the norm? Wouldn't it make more sense if the OS worked the way you did most times, and could account for the sometimes? Or, does it make more sense that it acts the way you need sometimes...all the time? I was asking for NORMAL occurances, not sometimes.

Wanting to see another window is considerably more common for me than wanting to give the entire screen to one program, so I find it to be perfectly appropriate behaviour. Having programs default to full screen would be a massive step backwards.

No, it doesn't. Some things can be done with the keyboard, even with Accessibility turned on. Again, some does not equal all.

What is it lacking that you need?

Re:Window Management

[Total_Wimp]

Congratulations. You're one of 100% of Mac Apologists who claim there's no reason people need more mouse buttons after they just get finished saying, "I need more mouse buttons."

I've seen thread after thread here on Slashdot where someone says they wish the standard Mac laptop or mouse had more than one button. Time after time, I've seen someone like you give them a reason why they shouldn't get it. If someone says another button or two would be useful, and a bunch of other people also chime in and say it would be useful, then there's a chance it just might be useful. Telling them they're wrong for wanting it is decidedly not useful.

I have a challenge for you. Find someone, somewhere, who sometime in the 21st century has claimed that two mouse buttons are confusing. Here's the catch; They also have to demonstrate that they can use Mac OS X for general computing tasks such as surfing the web; typing, printing and saving a document; and sending a simple email.

If you can do that, I'll give you props. If you can find two, I'll admit that there might be some truth to the "one mouse button is better," assertion. If you can find three, I'll proclaim the matter closed in favor of the one button mouse.

The truth is, I don't think you'll find a single person on Earth that can do email but is actually confused by two mouse buttons.

TW

Re:Window Management

[The Spoonman]

Okay. Of course, I have no problem with someone giving the Mac a real shot and not liking it. That's a matter of individual preference.

Then, I retract my "fanboy" statement from the last post because a real fanboy would never concede that some people just don't like 'em. :)

Nice troll. Of course, you missed the point, which was that one does not have to "click all over the place" to get things done on a Mac.

First, the species you're looking for is a "snark". A troll comes from MS and tries to sell you Windows when you don't want it. :) Secondly, if I ever have to reach for the mouse, I'm clicking all over the place, IMO. However, I'll give you one example that drove me insane (and I apologize if I'm not spouting 100% truth. I gave up the Mac over a year and a half ago, so I don't remember every particular) was that I couldn't tab through all fields either in dialogs or web pages. I seem to remember in particular dropdown boxes being a problem. Maybe it was radio buttons. Not sure, but my point was I prefer not to use the mouse when what I'm concentrating on is keyboard-centric such as writing a document or a slashdot reply.

Now you are mostly spouting nonsense. Stability, ease of use, security are assets of the Mac.

Depends on who you talk to. I work with a team of 12 Windows engineers who find disparagements of the OS like that to be not only laughable, but a little sad. We'll all tell you the same thing: we chose this OS as our primary base because we didn't want to work so hard. We hate being called in the middle of the night because something went down or got hacked. The Unix guys are not so lucky. They actually take the week off when they're on call they get called so often. Us, one call a week is excessive when on call. And, more often than not it's because some supportie dialed the wrong group. When a distributed app goes down, 999 times out of a 1000 it was the Unix side...unless the Windows box was running on a Dell, of course. :)

As for the other things, performance is a wash, as it depends on what metric you are using.

For me, the metric was the 1Ghz P3 w/256M of RAM I'd been using for a few years prior to purchasing the Mac which was a 1.33Ghz Powerbook with 1G of RAM. The PC ran circles around the Mac in every app. I actually had to save some larger tasks 'til I went to the office to do on a Windows box. Part of that was that it was a laptop, however, I did spend the extra money to get the 7200RPM 80G drive that was offered just so that performance aspect would be similar.

Of course, more apps are available for Windows overall, but good apps are available on the Mac for most functions, especially what that average user needs.

I won't disagree with you there. Aside from a good mail notification utility, I had equivalents of everything I needed. Some were up to the same tasks, some weren't, some were compensated for by other apps. However, being a geek, there was a huge chasm between what I needed and what I wanted. :)

Re:Window Management

[walt-sjc]

You're one of the .000000001% of people who ever used a X11 application on a mac

Have a source for that statistic? Didn't think so.

As for your other rant, it's without merit. As I have stated in another post, it would be easy for Apple to split-sensor the single huge-assed button so that it COULD be identified as three buttons, but by default act like a single button. A simple configuration option could solve one of the largest complaints about this issue that has gone on for as many years as Apple has been making laptops. Somehow you seem to think that giving others the option to have more than one button will somehow cause instant death for mac GUI design traditionalists. Trust me, you would be just fine.

If people didn't want more than one mouse button, then why is it that every replacement mouse for a mac have at least 3? Hell, even the mighty mouse has more than one.

Re:Window Management

[cayenne8]

"This is not a right-wrong thing. It is a how-does-it-work-for-you thing. I am primarily Mac user and get very frustrated with the windows behavior because it wastes too much space. I am used to having a lot of windows open, and find that it is difficult to multitask in Windows because the predominant assumption there is that you are using one application at a time."

I like lots of windows open at at time too...and I wish I had the option I have on Linux or Unix systems...multiple desktops!!

Now that is a way to organize..one for browsing and such...one for coding...one for...etc.

I wish I could get that easily on OSX and Windows. I'm having to work on a win box now again...and is frustrating as hell to find what I want...

Being that OSX is based on unix..it would seem they could set it to enable that easily...

Re:Window Management

[The Spoonman]

They're right up in the goddamn menu.

Okay, click a menu. You're telling me that every single entry on that menu has a shortcut? If it does, either you're not running OSX or they made substantive changes in the last year and a half. :)

Yes--either because you're using Windows, and the Windows GUI wastes space, or because you're using the sort of apps that would maximize themselves on Mac OS X anyway.

How does the Windows GUI waste space in comparison to the OSX one? At the bottom of my screen, there's a 32 pixel task bar, that's it. OSX has the task bar AND the dock.

Re:Window Management

[ceoyoyo]

Well, with that specific complaint.... I always use Terminal because I don't like the XTerm that comes with X11.

I'm not sure why I'd want to right (or middle!) drag anything in OS X... wait... are you complaining about things you'd do in X?

You do see how your complaints, while completely valid, are personal things? They're not actual flaws, they're just different than what you're used to.

Re:Window Management

[The Spoonman]

Wanting to see another window is considerably more common for me than wanting to give the entire screen to one program, so I find it to be perfectly appropriate behaviour. Having programs default to full screen would be a massive step backwards.

Huh? So, you tell me a bunch of examples that happen only sometimes, then it's the normal behavior? How does that work?

What is it lacking that you need?

Click a menu. Are there shortcuts for every item on that menu? The one next to it? The one next to that?

Re:Window Management

[falconwolf]

For those reasons, I kinda hope they do coast on their reputation for a while longer and not keep messing with the winning formula (think Coke Classic if anyone reading this is old enough to remember that fiasco).

Do you mean Coke before the "New Coke" in the '70s? They, both Coke and Pepsi but mostly Pepsi, used to have those tasting demo setups in malls and such. I'd go to one of Pepsi's tables, try a cup of both them say something like "this is Pepsi and this is Coke, I prefer the Coke". But when Coke released the "New Coke" and I tried it I told the Coke workers if I wanted to drink Pepsi I'd buy Pepsi not the New Coke. Eventually they finally got the idea, somewhat that is, and came out with "Coke Classic" that was supposed to be the old formula. I tried it though and it wasn't the same.

BTW, does anyone know what was originally in Coke? Cocaine. Coke was made with coca leaves which is what coacine is made from, and cocaine was used in medicine as a treatment.

Falcon

Re:Window Management

[nine-times]

As with most things in life, I use things because I want them to do what I want, not because I want to do what they want me to. Like my OS. Even if it's all fucked up, I want it to work how I expect.... The problem isn't that the users don't "get" OSX.

Possibly if you "got" OSX, you'd know what to expect?

I want to resize the window, but the UI has to step in to do it for me, as I can't be trusted?

No, you can resize things manually if you like. I don't see how this is so different from other operating systems. Would you complain that Windows doesn't trust you because when you request it automatically tile your Windows, it doesn't tile them the way you would if you did it manually?

In Windows, you can resize the window manually, or you can tell it to automatically maximize the window to take up the whole screen, tile windows, or cascade them. Apple seems to think it's more useful to have a button that says, "automatically make the window use screen space efficiently".

Re:Window Management

[frdmfghtr]

I know a lot of people don't like it, but tapping the track pad works perfectly for me. With the addition of two-finger tapping for a right mouse button I'm perfectly happy.

And as I already stated, that doesn't work for a click-drag operation.

Actually, it might.

On my iBook, I use the double one-finger-tap in place of a left-click on the mouse. Do a double tap, then on the second tap drag instead of lifting your finger. I can then drag, lift, drag, lift, drag, etc. as needed to select all the text/whatever I am selecting, and the click stays locked until I do a single finger-tap again. (Although you're probably aware of this little trick.)

I don't have the two finger right-click though, that's apparently a MacBook/MBP feature. I would suspect that it would work the same, locking the "click" on the second rapid tap-drag combo, releasing on the next two-finger tap.

Can anybody with a MacBook/MBP confirm/deny this?

Re:Window Management

[The One and Only]

Okay, click a menu. You're telling me that every single entry on that menu has a shortcut?

No, but the vast majority of entries I actually use do have shortcuts.

How does the Windows GUI waste space in comparison to the OSX one? At the bottom of my screen, there's a 32 pixel task bar, that's it. OSX has the task bar AND the dock.

Mac OS X has a task bar? Are you posting from an alternate universe or something?

Re:Window Management

[tgibbs]

Why, in general, do we even need to resize windows? The answer, 90% of the time, is that the window is the wrong size or shape for its contents. That's what the green "optimize" button is for -- to resize the window automatically to the same size as its contents, and properly implemented, this does just what you want. With Safari, it makes my web browser just wide enough to view the current page without scrolling, and tall enough to show all or as much of the page as possible. With Pages, it resizes the document window to fit the exact size of the document at its current zoom level. I practically never need to resize these windows.

I disagree. For the record, I've used Macs since the Mac Plus, and I have no Windows habits to overcome. But I've also in the past used utilities that made all corners draggable on the Mac, and I find it a decided convenience. Yes, it's something I only used occasionally, but on those occasions, I really appreciated it. Yes, most of the time it is because an app isn't handling its windows properly, but that is beside the point. My preferred implementation would be to keep the windows looking as they do, but if I hold down the option key and hover the pointer over a window edge or corner, the pointer should turn to a resize icon, allowing me to resize the window from that point.

Re:Window Management

[falconwolf]

This is not a right-wrong thing. It is a how-does-it-work-for-you thing. I am primarily Mac user and get very frustrated with the windows behavior because it wastes too much space. I am used to having a lot of windows open, and find that it is difficult to multitask in Windows because the predominant assumption there is that you are using one application at a time.

I used to be primarily a Mac user but since about ten years ago I've primarily been a Windows user, but I hope to switch back to Macs as I plan on getting a Macbook Pro rsn. I have no trouble multitasking in Windows while a window display fullscreen. I have no trouble using "alt" + "tab" to switch between apps or windows, and the Mac has the same ability though it's "option" + "tab" if I recall right. When I'm working on a doc I want to concentrate on the doc and not have a bunch of other stuff (windows) taking up valuable screen real estate or being a distraction.

I use drag-and-drop as my main way of moving things around (as opposed cut-and-paste which is the main model on Windows), and I find myself constantly frustrated on Windows because it is just less setup with this in mind.

I can do the same in Windows. I can make a selection in one window, drag it to the taskbar over the icon for the app or doc I want to copy it to, then paste it in the doc. No problem and no having to "copy and paste", though it doesn't really make much difference which way it's done, copying and pasting doesn't take me much tyme.

Falcon

Re:Window Management

[644bd346996]

Expose removes most of the need for multiple desktops. I can't use windows or linux without a 2x2 array of virtual desktops, but on a mac I'm fine. Being able to use the dock to switch between apps also helps, and the mighty mouse side buttons are great.

For what is is worth, the next version of OS X (10.5) will have virtual desktops.

Re:Window Management

[Afecks]

I would never use it. I must have Firefox maximized at all times. Also my desktop has 0 icons on it so I guess I'm just anal about these kinds of things. I have to keep it uniform. The only time I would ever want to interact with 2 windows at once is dragging files from one window to another. I can already do that by dragging the files to the taskbar icon of the destination window and it automatically brings it to the front. I'm on a wide screen laptop and almost every site I visit regularly stretches to fill the entire window. There are only a few sites I visit that don't and I consider them poorly designed.

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

Find someone, somewhere, who sometime in the 21st century has claimed that two mouse buttons are confusing.

It's less about confusion, and more about perpetuating a group of interfaces with commonality across applications. When that commonality breaks down, then the confusion sets in.

I'm glad an Apple will work with a 1-button mouse out of the box, and I dread the third-party dev quagmire of myriad applications concealing functionality in context menus (while ignoring common shortcut keys for common functions).

Re:Window Management

[tknd]

The motivation behind wanting Mac OS X to "take up the whole fucking screen with this window" stems partly from being stuck in the Windows singletasking frame of mind

Incorrect.

When you have a terminal open and you start running commands, some command output doesn't care about the window size; a line is a line and until a new line is encountered or the end of the window is reached, the line won't wrap. It is equally annoying when the software 'thinks' it is smart enough to not wrap and just pisses you off even more by restricting itself but at the same time making it harder for you to read. The best example I can think of is Oracle's sqlplus tool which will try to fit a 100 character field in your window no matter what. Maybe newer versions are a little better, but either way, it's annoying.

So when I work in a ssh terminal, it isn't uncommon for me to want the window to take up the whole screen. Sure, it might not be all the time, but usually it occasionally happens.

Another example is webpages. Let's go to google's home page for instance and do a search for 'cards'. Great, search results on the left and ads on the right. Well if I resize my window to be really big this huge whitespace divider appears between the ads and the results. I like that. But google probably doesn't and google would rather have the software resize the window so that the ads are flush next to the results. My views don't agree with the software but I'm the user, I own the computer, I may have even created it, so let me do what I want.

And it isn't even that hard to do in windows: the maximize button is overrated, just double click the title bar. When the window is maximized, you can be certain (as long as your start menu is not on the top) that your window's title bar is at the top of the screen. So you fling your mouse up and double click.

So stop this BS on how things should be done. There are multiple ways to do something and each has their own advantage. There's no reason not to offer multiple options. There's nothing wrong with suggesting one method over others, but still making the others available. There is everything wrong with explicitly telling me there is only one way and just because the other ways aren't always what I want.

Nonetheless, there's nothing stopping you from making a single Mac OS X window take up the whole fucking screen. Just hide the dock, move your window into the top left corner, and resize it until it takes up the entire screen. It's just a pointless and silly task in the Mac GUI so there's no easy shortcut for it.

But that's exactly the argument. What's stopping Apple from providing this function? Bitterness to admit that microsoft sometimes does come up with useful functions? Both Gnome and Kde offer this function. But not OSX. It's exactly that attitude that pisses me off and is one major factor that makes me change my mind about buying Apple products.

Re: Window Management

[gidds]

How about regular click an edge to move the entire window, and control-click-drag anywhere on an edge to resize?

Click on what edge? Drag anywhere on what edge?

On Windows, windows waste several pixels on each edge just for this purpose. OS X windows don't; they generally reserve space for actual content, and show the window's edge by the shadow which it throws over surrounding windows. There is nothing to drag.

Re:Window Management

[Thrudheim]

I gave up the Mac over a year and a half ago, so I don't remember every particular) was that I couldn't tab through all fields either in dialogs or web pages. I seem to remember in particular dropdown boxes being a problem. Maybe it was radio buttons. Not sure, but my point was I prefer not to use the mouse when what I'm concentrating on is keyboard-centric such as writing a document or a slashdot reply.

It seems to me that Safari does better at tabbing through web pages than it used to, but I am not sure. The trick with dropdown boxes is that, once you tab to it, hit the space bar to bring up the options, then you can type the first letters to quickly highlight the option you want. I think Apple does need to do a better job at communicating to users the shortcuts that are available, as may be the case with this one.

I work with a team of 12 Windows engineers who find disparagements of the OS like that to be not only laughable, but a little sad.

I think that the problem for Windows is that average users do not have the technical expertise to keep Windows secure and stable like you and your fellow engineers do. IT can lock down users systems tightly, but people at home often fail to take basic precautions. Even fairly savvy people who do take precautions have trouble. With Vista and better UAC, the situation may improve. Right now, though, malware creeps onto people's systems without them having any idea that it got there.

For me, the metric was the 1Ghz P3 w/256M of RAM I'd been using for a few years prior to purchasing the Mac which was a 1.33Ghz Powerbook with 1G of RAM. The PC ran circles around the Mac in every app.

I can't speak to what tasks you were trying to accomplish, but I do know this: Mac laptops of that generation (with the G4 chips) were lagging in performance relative to PC brethren. Motorola simply could not keep up with Intel in that department, and the situation got increasingly worse. This is one of the biggest factors that drove Apple's switch to Intel. For Mac desktops of that era, on the other hand, the G5 processor from IBM brought very good performance. Nowadays, with Core Duo 2 laptops, performance is very solid and on par with PC laptops (as they should be). Some key apps still need to be made Intel-native, though.

Another factor is that Aqua does require overhead. OS X was much less responsive than Mac OS 9 on the same hardware. The only difference for Windows is that Aero is arriving much later in time, with better hardware to handle the new visual presentation.

Re:Window Management

[TobiasS]

I am an occasional mac user (bought one for my better half).

I have found that iTerm is superb. tabbed terms, etc.

http://iterm.sourceforge.net/

-T

Re:Window Management

[Thrudheim]

With respect to wanting multiple windows in sight at the same time, different people work in different ways. There's no right or wrong way. It's funny, though, because I often want to read from one window while typing on another and find it suprising that other's don't seem to find this useful. I suppose it's the kind of work I do. For example, I might want to quote from the scanned image of an article. Or, I want to enter data into a spreadsheet from the output of a statistical program.

As for browser windows, if I actually used all the horizontal space the window would be really disproportionate, but then I am using a 20-inch display. I find few sites that actually expand to take up all this space (mostly they just add a lot of white space), and if they do they look really ugly.

Re:Window Management

[falconwolf]

Because in Windows, maximizing is a useful (necessary) task that you always have to do, so putting it in a button makes sense there. This is not true of Mac OS X.

I want to maximize windows in Mac OS X as much as I do in Windows. I want what I'm looking at and, or working on, to use the maximum amount of screen real estate.

Falcon

Re:Window Management

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Have a source for that statistic? Didn't think so.

It was an intentional exaggeration to make a point. What percentage of users do you think try such a task?

As for your other rant, it's without merit. As I have stated in another post, it would be easy for Apple to split-sensor the single huge-assed button so that it COULD be identified as three buttons, but by default act like a single button.

Yes, they could. The question is, is there real benefit to this, considering the additional cost and dev time it would require. As I explained elsewhere in this thread, chording with a mouse and keyboard is problematic because you have to move your off hand. Chording with a laptop trackpad and keyboard does not have this problem and ends up being faster than multiple trackpad buttons, once you learn how to do it. So you are asking for a potentially expensive solution in both dev time and hardware cost and reliability in order to reduce how hard it is to perform a very uncommon operation, that is faster to do another way once you do learn. If I was at Apple, that would be pretty low on the list of projects I wanted to do.

A simple configuration option could solve one of the largest complaints...

I think you mean a simple configuration option, the cost of whatever else that developer is not doing and the cost of creating, building, and supporting a new type of hardware.

Somehow you seem to think that giving others the option to have more than one button will somehow cause instant death for mac GUI design traditionalists.

Where did you get idea? If Apple can make a single button default trackpad button, that converts in software to a multi-button one, and does not significantly raise the cost of the laptops or reduce their reliability and longevity, I have no problem with them doing it. I just don't think it is, or should be much of a priority for them and I think I've done a pretty good job of explaining why.

If people didn't want more than one mouse button, then why is it that every replacement mouse for a mac have at least 3? Hell, even the mighty mouse has more than one.

Some people, especially those who buy a custom mouse, do want multiple buttons. That does nothing to speak to the benefits versus problems with shipping one by default. I use a four button trackpad every day. I still am thankful every day that Apple ships a one button mouse by default on their systems, so I don't have to try to find a good five button trackball or lose functionality to the poor design practices in the industry today.

Re:Window Management

[SuperMog2002]

It doesn't work. Dragging two fingers scrolls, even if you just tapped. If I tap-drag two fingers in this here Camino window, the tap will bring up the context menu and the drag will attempts to scroll the context menu (which will result in nothing happening since the context menu isn't big enough to require scrolling.)

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched to Mac a couple of months ago, and I have to agree with you on that. The best "trick" (feature) I've discovered this far is to zoom all of my Safari windows (not using tabs), and then just use Exposé for switching between the windows. Makes tabs look prehistoric, even though they remain useful when working on Windows.

The only problem with this is having more than, say 7 browser windows open on my MacBook, since the Exposé lays out the fully zoomed windows side-by-side (which is actually very useful in most cases). But I rarely need so many windows open on a single application anyways. Sort of hurts my concentration ;)

Re:Window Management

[hackstraw]

I would like to chime in on the one button mouse thing.

I used to knock apple for it for years, and then I started _using_ a one button mouse, and I don't too much care how many buttons there are. I would say I'm slightly in favor of one button.

When I got my first Mac a few years ago, the first thing I did was to buy a "real mouse". Actually, it was a powerbook and I did not want to exclusively use the trackpad.

What have I learned over the years. Multi-button mice on any OS do not differentiate between Alt, shift, control, Option, or whatever key combination with the advent of any number of buttons. In fact, when you hook up a multibutton mouse to a Mac the other clicker button is usually mapped to control+click.

I will say for laptops and a trackpad, its much better having one button vs two.

Also, I have not used this personally, but I bet it, like most things Mac -- it "Just works" when using a touch screen with a Mac because it is the same as a one button mouse, and most apps are designed with the one button.

Re:Window Management

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You're one of 100% of Mac Apologists who claim there's no reason people need more mouse buttons

This is the logical fallacy called a strawman argument. Had I actually said that, you could have quoted me. I didn't, however,say that, you just made it up.

Telling them they're wrong for wanting it is decidedly not useful.

If someone who is not a usability expert claims a change they think might help them is a good idea, then it i certainly appropriate to give them reasons why that change is probably a bad idea for users in general. Further, often users do not know what allows them to complete a task most effectively, because their own perspective on the situation is not objective. A lot of people who spend 10 or more seconds selecting an item from a menu tell researchers that spending 2 seconds clicking a button, then waiting 3 seconds, took longer. That doesn't mean the former is better, it means the user was factually incorrect because they did not have the proper perspective to see the issue.

I have a challenge for you. Find someone, somewhere, who sometime in the 21st century has claimed that two mouse buttons are confusing. Here's the catch; They also have to demonstrate that they can use Mac OS X for general computing tasks such as surfing the web; typing, printing and saving a document; and sending a simple email.

I don't have to go very far for that, my mother fit perfectly in that category until I got her a mac. For that matter my father, who uses OS X for e-mail and nothing else regularly clicks the wrong mouse button on his Windows box and has to try the other one. Ask anyone who has done tech support for basic users and you'll find clicking just one, proper mouse button is one of the most common usability problems with Windows. There is even a joke poster I saw printed in one support center that read something like:

"Press the right button." (Presses left button) "Ok".

"No, not that one. I said the RIGHT button." (Presses left button) "Ok"

"No, the RIIIGHT button." (Presses left button) "I DID press the right button."

"Ok. Now press the WRONG button." (Presses right button)

The truth is, I don't think you'll find a single person on Earth that can do email but is actually confused by two mouse buttons.

As much as you my disagree with it, left and right mouse buttons are very confusing to a lot of users and even in more advanced usability studies you see people hit the wrong one now and again, and I'm not talking about random college kids, I'm talking about network security experts and people responsible for some of the largest and most critical networks on the planet. For novice users, they are a huge problem and applications designed with multiple buttons in mind are often wholly unusable for people with alternate input devices like braille boards, tablets, spoken interfaces, etc.

Re:Window Management

[egomaniac]

However, I'll give you one example that drove me insane (and I apologize if I'm not spouting 100% truth. I gave up the Mac over a year and a half ago, so I don't remember every particular) was that I couldn't tab through all fields either in dialogs or web pages. I seem to remember in particular dropdown boxes being a problem. Maybe it was radio buttons. Not sure, but my point was I prefer not to use the mouse when what I'm concentrating on is keyboard-centric such as writing a document or a slashdot reply.

By default, Macs don't allow full keyboard navigation -- you can't access the menu bar or most non-textual controls using keyboard commands. I presume that the reason for this is that novices don't use keyboard navigation in the first place and get confused when they accidentally trigger it (I've personally seen people accidentally hit "Alt" while typing, thereby putting focus on the menu bar, and then getting ridiculously confused about what happens when they continue typing).

To turn on full keyboard navigation, open Keyboard Shortcuts (under System Preferences / Keyboard & Mouse) and turn on "Full Keyboard Access". This pane also lists all of the shortcuts you can use while full keyboard access is on, such as ^F2 to focus the menu bar. The ^F1 shortcut can also be used to toggle Full Keyboard Access on or off without having to go into System Preferences.

Re:Window Management

[hackstraw]

Keep in mind that one big difference between Macs and other GUIs is that the apps actually remember window positions!

Having my apps have their individual windows in their places and having them overlap so I can see/switch between them is priceless.

Maximizing windows is not really a desire. It is to achieve user focus (Macs have a feature hide other applications for that), and it is to create a menu in the same place (Macs always have the application menu at the top of the screen).

Sure, there are times for specific application where even "maximizing" is not good enough. And that is called full screen, and there are hooks in GUIs for that as well.

Also, Macs have what no other GUI has in that they treat "applications" and "windows" differently. If you don't know what this means, you have not used a Mac for any time, and you don't know the advantage there.

Re:Window Management

[egomaniac]

Since I'm running Safari, let me use that as an example. Here is the complete set of menu items which do not have shortcuts (not counting dynamic ones such as my history and open windows):

Import Bookmarks...
Export Bookmarks...
Check Spelling as You Type
Customize Address Bar...
Zoom
Bring All to Front

That's it. You'll note that not a single one of those is something you need to do frequently. And that's pretty consistent with every other Mac application I use. In general, they have shortcuts for every single commonly used menu item, and those shortcuts are far more consistent than are Windows'.

For instance, when using an unfamiliar Windows program I have to spend a moment trying to figure out where the damned program keeps its settings. Is it under the File menu? Edit? Tools? Is it named Preferences? Or Settings? Or Configuration? Or (in the case of IE) Internet Options? In MacOS, the menu is always in the same place (under the <program name> menu), always has the same name (Preferences), and always has the same shortcut (Cmd-,). Sure, it's a little thing. But every time I have to spend ten seconds trying to find a damned program's settings under Windows, it makes me appreciate MacOS a little bit more.

Re:Window Management

[aristotle-dude]

interestingly enough microsoft office for windows has the same mac-like inactive window mouse click feature, and I've always wanted to know why That's because Office was originally developed for the mac. Long before MSFT released a true GUI version of windows, MSFT received a prototype mac to develop word and excel for the mac.

Re:Window Management

[Total_Wimp]

Are you a usability expert? I just want to know, because you spend a lot of time talking as if you are. This is not a criticism, just a question.

Tech support with GUIs is a setup. Explaining the right vs.left button is nothing compared to trying to explain scrolling to someone who doesn't know it by that name, or trying to walk someone through something that's slightly different on your screen because of a version mismatch. This isn't a mouse issue, it's an issue with the difficulty of effectively delivering remote tech support.

I'm guilty of having to think of the difference between left and right when someone gives me directions, but I don't click the wrong button any more than I mistype my password or make other inadvertent or clumsy mistakes. I'm guessing this is the same for almost everyone. This is not a mouse issue, but a human dexterity issue. Getting rid of a button doesn't fix it, it just moves your clumsy errors to occurring at the menu bar. If your father truly forgets which button does which, I'll be impressed in a clinical sense that his memory is so selectively bad with this, but works just fine with email addresses. If it's just an inadvertent mistake, please reference the first part of this paragraph for what I think of the relevance.

Your mom? I don't know what to say. Is it really that much easier for her to use a one-button mouse, or were there other OS differences she found easier to work with on a Mac? I will admit, some people find Macs easier. I've met 'em. I don't doubt their sincerity.

But I've never, ever witnessed people having trouble figuring out which button to press on a two-button mouse. In fact, of all the dense, clueless, dangerous, can't-figure-out-how-to-plug-the-computer-in Windows users I've worked with in my decade-long IT career, I've never once observed a mouse related issue, other that the simple misunderstandings in verbal description that plaque _all_ tech support (yes, even tech support for Macs). I've had to explain scroll-bars, then arrows, then "those little triangles." I've had to explain that even though the phone cord will fit in the network slot, it will not work. Twice. To the same person. I had a user tell me she lost her Word docs and when I asked her where she stored them she said, "in Word." No amount of cajoling could get her to understand a file structure, or, in fact, the reason her documents were gone was that her entire computer had just been replaced. Yet none of these people had any confusion over mouse buttons, including one of them (the scroll bar guy) who was using a stylus on a tablet where a tap was left and a hold-the-button tap was right.

Does your mom really dislike the mouse rather than the Windows OS? Heck, she's your mom, so you're the one best qualified to know. I'll give you this one. But if you are a usability expert, or you know of some places where one could find usability studies, I'd love to see one made in the 21st century that says one button is better than two. I know I've asked and you've already delivered, but it's just so hard for me to understand what goes so strongly against what I've actually observed: two buttons are no real problem, one button is no real help, and getting a menu with the stuff you need on it without moving your mouse an inch is, as they say in the MasterCard commercial, Priceless.

TW

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad Cocoa Emacs isn't open source. You could fix it to work correctly. Oh wait, it is open source.

Open Source: Utterly Useless.

Re:Window Management

[falconwolf]

Wanting to see another window is considerably more common for me than wanting to give the entire screen to one program, so I find it to be perfectly appropriate behaviour. Having programs default to full screen would be a massive step backwards.

Having windows default to only part of the screen is a step backwards to me. I rarely need to see anything other than what I am currently working on and if I need to check on something else I can quickly toggle between apps or windows. While some like you may prefer not to have apps maximize by default some like me prefer app to maximize by default, so there should be a choice as to how the user wants things.

Falcon

Re:Window Management

[Kesh]

Okay, click a menu. You're telling me that every single entry on that menu has a shortcut? If it does, either you're not running OSX or they made substantive changes in the last year and a half. :)

It depends on which app you're using. Most of Apple's apps do have a keyboard shortcut for 90% of the menu options. Some third-party apps have nothing but Copy/Cut/Paste/Undo.

Re:Window Management

[Varitek]

The truth is, I don't think you'll find a single person on Earth that can do email but is actually confused by two mouse buttons.

My father uses Opera, scanner software, the Gimp, and Picasa on Linux, but absolutely can't remember what he's supposed to use the right mouse button for. No matter how many times I tell him it's a context menu, and it does something with the object he right-clicks on, he doesn't get it. If I tell him to double-click something, he asks 'which button?', even though it's obvious to me that right-double-click is never used.

Re:Window Management

[dangitman]

The thing about MacOS is that it has tons of hidden modifier keys and keyboard shortcuts, that often provide the desired behavior (or close to it). The problem is that most users don't know about them. Apple really should document these things better. Even power users are continually discovering new modifiers they never knew existed.

Re:Window Management

[Total_Wimp]

Seriously? I'm amazed. Gimp is not exactly a model of transparency for beginners. I normally rate Gimp users' computer savvy as pretty darn high, much less Linux. Just out of curiosity, do you have any guesses as to why this might be? He's clearly bright and not a newbie so I'm having a hard time figuring this out short of a handedness issue or some kind of selective memory issue.

TW

Re:Window Management

[roscivs]

My mom and my mother-in-law are both insanely confused by the right mouse button. MIL recently got a Mac, and although her kids use it with the right mouse button enabled, she uses it with just a single mouse button. And it's much, much, much easier for her.

Re:Window Management

[Lars T.]

I can't take anyone serious who thinks three mouse-buttons are enough.

Re:Window Management

[Varitek]

Well, he doesn't do anything extreme with gimp - cropping, resizing, brightness adjustment, that sort of thing, and he only uses Linux because I can admin it remotely.

In answer to your question, he just doesn't think about computers in the same way you or I do. He didn't use one until he was almost 60, and nothing about using them comes easily to him. If I show him how to do something, and he does it regularly enough, he can 'remember' how to do it, but if he needs to do something similar, it doesn't occur to him to adapt any of the procedures he already knows to accomplish the new task. For example, if he uses an option on the File menu of an application, he knows to click there, and there, and there - but if I tell him to click on the File menu to do something else, he has to look for it.

It's the same with the right mouse button. If there's an option he uses a lot, he can use the right mouse button, but he doesn't have it abstracted out as 'the button that produces a context menu'. It's just 'the button he uses when he has to save an image from Opera', for example. If he wanted to find out the properties of that same image, it wouldn't occur to him to look for it on the context menu.

He's a perfectly intelligent guy. It's just that computer interfaces don't come naturally to him. (He's learning, though. I'm constantly amazed by how much he's bought into using a computer, even if he has to work at it)

Re:Window Management

[fingusernames]

Depends on who you talk to. I work with a team of 12 Windows engineers who find disparagements of the OS like that to be not only laughable, but a little sad. We'll all tell you the same thing: we chose this OS as our primary base because we didn't want to work so hard. We hate being called in the middle of the night because something went down or got hacked. The Unix guys are not so lucky. They actually take the week off when they're on call they get called so often. Us, one call a week is excessive when on call. And, more often than not it's because some supportie dialed the wrong group. When a distributed app goes down, 999 times out of a 1000 it was the Unix side...unless the Windows box was running on a Dell, of course. :)

Ahem... a Windows engineer? I guess that's not so bad actually, locomotives have engineers who operate them. Regarding your Unix admins, if they have boxes going down often, then they are incompetent, pure and simple. If they have services going down often, ditto. I've worked in high availability environments such as banking and finance, and a well administered cluster of Unix boxes in a well architected network is highly stable, nearly as stable as the 99.99999% uptime mainframes (on which some places merge the best of both worlds, running Linux in LPARs). I will grant Microsoft something though, they've un-fucked-up their fuck-ups to Cutler's originally very good OS enough now that it is also quite stable again, if well administered. You can even reliably run multiple tasks per box now! But in most high availability environments, Windows still serves as front-end to the Unix or mainframe back-end, if Windows has a place at all.

Hell, I've worked with Linux boxes in public facing ISP environments that, even hacked and rootkitted and serving as IRC war-bots, stay up and serving mail, web pages, and all their other services just fine.

Larry

Re:Window Management

[The One and Only]

So stop this BS on how things should be done. There are multiple ways to do something and each has their own advantage.

I'm just explaining the way Mac OS X does it. If you don't like it, there's nothing stopping you from using a different OS.

Re:Window Management

[The One and Only]

Right--referring to my original post here, you want to singletask and not multitask. Depending on what apps you use, this may be a reason Windows is better for you--although apps like Final Cut and Xcode can take up the entire screen on Mac OS X without much effort, other apps like Safari and TextEdit are harder to maximize. (This is because of two concerns--need for real estate, and likelihood of multitasking. If I'm in an IM, text editor, or terminal window, I probably want to multitask pretty often--if I'm in Final Cut or Xcode, I'm more focused on what I'm doing then and there).

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

It IS your fault for not understanding the superiority of the UI.

Windoze is very badly designed.

Re:Window Management

[JonathanBoyd]

Huh? So, you tell me a bunch of examples that happen only sometimes, then it's the normal behavior? How does that work?

If your requirement for normal behaviour is that it is what you always expect to happen, then your preference fails to meet the definition because clearly going full screen isn't always the desired behaviour. A more sensible definition of normal or expected behaviour is that it be what is most often required, hence me explaining that it is more common for me to want to see other windows than have the entire screen dominated by a single window. How would a less commonly desired usage of the zoom/maximise button be a more normal or expected behaviour than a less commonly desired usage?

Click a menu. Are there shortcuts for every item on that menu? The one next to it? The one next to that?

No. What's your point? Are you aware what full keyboard access is? It isn't having a shortcut for every menu item; it's being able to access any menu or control from the keyboard. Hit ctrl-F1 to turn it on, then ctrl-F2 to shift focus to the menubar. You can then use the cursor keys or start typing to select menu commands. A couple of seconds in the keyboard preferences makes this pretty clear, but that would require actually sitting down and using Mac Os X, rather than just making grand claims about non-existent failings.

Re:Window Management

[JonathanBoyd]

That would drive one of us nuts if we then had to use each other's computer, resulting in changing the setting, irritating the owner who has to change it back... Consistency is better in this case, IMHO. Of course, it is just opinion, rather than a provable fact.

Re:Window Management

[DJCacophony]

So I notice most of the replies are using anecdotal evidence.

Re:Window Management

[willy_me]

The truth is, I don't think you'll find a single person on Earth that can do email but is actually confused by two mouse buttons.

My father, grandfather, and to a lesser degree, my mother.

Re:Window Management

[drauh]

you never have a use, and therefore, no one else does? meh. i like the way the zoom button works. i like my clean (mostly) mac os x gui. using kde/gnome/windows bugs the hell out of me with the numerous visual distractions in the UI. (i used to use fvwm2 which i had configured to be nice and quick.) i want my mac to be a mac, not to conform to what the rest of the world expects it to be. i like the way it works.

this argument is a lot like asking the vim devs to change key bindings to be emacs-style. (for all i know, this is possible.)

Re:Window Management

[pasamio]

I've seen it in a few cases, almost all in the older generation. I'm not arguing one, two or three is better than the other. I prefer Linux and use three buttons all the time (select, paste, context); I'm paid to work on Windows (two there, sometimes I wish there was three to do stuff, that said some CAD applications use three buttons) and I have a Apple iBook G4 that I wouldn't replace without another Mac laptop (Windows laptops have had far to many problems every time I've used them and Linux laptop support to be honest is lacking). It is there, and it is rather frustrating to try and explain the two buttons (for Linux I usually just let the scroll mouse be scroll like instead of 'paste'.)

Re:Window Management

[drauh]

oh, i'd like to add that the /. crowd predicted that the ipod would tank. based on this one point of design criticism, i don't think i will put too much value in what most people here desire in terms of UI.

Re:Window Management

[toddestan]

Because OS X only has one button by default, all developers code to that standard and all functions are available to users of all these devices.

Are you sure about this? Apple's very own Shake application lists a 3 button mouse right in the requirements, which I found especially amusing before they came out with the Mighty Mouse.

Re:Window Management

[toddestan]

Why, in general, do we even need to resize windows? The answer, 90% of the time, is that the window is the wrong size or shape for its contents. That's what the green "optimize" button is for -- to resize the window automatically to the same size as its contents, and properly implemented, this does just what you want. With Safari, it makes my web browser just wide enough to view the current page without scrolling, and tall enough to show all or as much of the page as possible. With Pages, it resizes the document window to fit the exact size of the document at its current zoom level. I practically never need to resize these windows.

I would have to constantly resize the window. Sure, the zoom button may resize the web browser to the perfect size, but then I click on a link change tabs, and then it's the wrong size again! Annoying. I would rather just have it take up the whole screen, especially if web browsing is the only activity I'm engaged in at the moment. I agree that the optomize is button is not a bad idea on its own, but it's a shitty replacement for the Maximize button.

Re:Window Management

[rob_squared]

The world shouldn't be designed for idiots, but it is. But for the love of god, don't ignore the people who can tell left from right!

Re:Window Management

[ZackSchil]

While I agree with your assessment that 2+ buttons are better, I do know several people who use computers all the time and are confused by two mouse buttons. These are people that use computers by memorization, not live conceptualization, sure, but they are still people who use computers. Secondly, I hope Apple keeps the one-button mouse for one reason and one reason only: it forces developers to come up with clever, intuitive, simple, space-efficient ways of implementing and exposing functionality. If you can't be sure your users will have two buttons, you need to actually think about your UI design rather than simply burying everything under the sun into context menus, like a lot of Windows apps do. I've even seen Windows apps that open to a blank screen that says "right click and select 'Start Wizard' to begin". It's enough to make my brain melt and ooze out my ears. (The app in question is Xilinx iMPACT, an FPGA programmer, if you were wondering, but there are others that pull similar tricks as well.)

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

For novice users, a single button is a much, much, much better option

I don't care. I'm not a novice user. How hard is that to understand?`

Re:Window Management

[dscruggs]

"take up the whole fucking screen with this window" stems partly from being stuck in the Windows singletasking frame of mind

It's not a "frame of mind." Single-tasking is what humans are optimized for. There's a reason IQ goes down when you try to do more than one thing at a time.

I have a Mac as my primary computer (using itto write this) and I generally love it, but sometimes I'd rather fill the screen so that there's nothing else on it but the task at hand, just like I regularly remove all distractions from my physical desktop.

Fortunately I found Stoplight. The very fact of its existence AND the fact that there's not an equivalent product for Windows ought to tell you something.

Re:Window Management

[SimHacker]

A friend of mine who is a Mac user since the 1980's, but no dummy (he has a PhD from MIT) was using a program I wrote for him on a small screen Windows system. The initial window size was pretty large, but it was resizable, so the bottom edge of the window went off the bottom edge of the screen. He called me up and complained that the program was unusable because he could not resize the window because its lower right corner was off the screen, and he could not drag it up far enough to expose the resize corner. I had to explain that on Windows, you can resize a window from any corner or edge. He just assumed that you could only resize a window with the lower right corner, because he'd been using Macs for so many years.

Don't count on Apple fixing this problem any time soon. They are too proud to admit they made such a stupid mistake.

But I hereby challenge any Mac advocate to make an argument why it's better to only be able to resize the window from the lower right hand corner. I love to hear them squirm and bend over backwards to carry Steve Job's water and wash his dirty laundry. I will gladly paypal $20 to anyone who can show a usability study or even a rational argument that says Apple is right about this.

-Don

Re:Window Management

[Total_Wimp]

Another guy also mentioned the memorization thing as an impediment to making full use of the right click. It's an interesting perspective and seems to be a somewhat common theme in the replies I've gotten. I am curious as to whether it makes the computer harder to use, or whether it means the right mouse button just doesn't get used much. Either way, I find myself all the more curious whether anyone has done usability studies recently and what kind of results they got.

It was interesting that you mentioned that single button mice force better design in Mac apps. I think this is kind of funny because the I've always felt the lack of a second button has resulted in Mac context menus that aren't very good relative to Windows. I've found that if I use a two button mouse on a Mac or hit CTRL+CLICK, that the menus were small and lacking features. Oh well, I guess it's just a lesson that even small changes can have significant unintended consequences.

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

My girlfriend, whose only recent computing experience is with Windows, is not a power user by any means, but she knows how to use a computer and has plenty of experience (she's just not into them). She's used computers for quite a while, and even remembers using Compuserve and BBS's.

Recently we were at an Apple store I commented how Mac laptop's only have one button. She said she likes that better. I didn't ask her why she thought that, but I assume its because it makes things simpler. If not from a UI perspective than at least from a purely physical hand coordination thing.

*shrug*

I, on the other hand, need at least 3 buttons, but prefer 5 :)

If Apple could design a laptop mouse that looked like a one-button mouse but could act like a two button mouse (detect which side you press it) that would be genius. Or maybe allow replacing the button somehow. Also give me a Thinkpad-style trackpoint option, I found those far superior to any touchpad.

Re:Window Management

[pebs]

That's all fine and well until you are using Mac OS on a tiny (laptop) lower resolution monitor. In that case I want just about everything maximized, because its too fucking small otherwise.

In Linux/Windows, for most apps I don't maximize on my desktop machines because I have a large enough monitor that it wouldn't make sense. But on my laptop with 1024x768 resolution, you better believe I'm maximizing.

The drag-to-the-upper-left-hand-corner and click-drag-it-to-maximum would be ok if windows weren't allowed to slide off screen to the left. Rather, you have to precisely line up the window along the left edge to get it right.

Re:Window Management

[pasamio]

In addition to that you can assign shortcuts to any menu item even if it doesn't have one from a central control panel. Can't do that in windows if the application doesn't support it (let alone the whole central place thing, where is the option to change the settings for MS Word versus MS Visual Studio.

Re:Window Management

[pasamio]

Menu bar at the top also functions similar to the MS Windows task bar: applications may put their own icons there (e.g. Adium puts an icon there which does more than the icon that Windows Live Messenger offers under Windows.

Re:Window Management

[pasamio]

So the menu item doesn't have an option. Its some random XYZ program, but for the purposes we'll use 'Finder' in Mac OS X 10.4.8 so those of us with Macs at home can play along too.

So we find our application (Finder) and we want to easily create a new burn folder because we do that a lot. Finder doesn't offer us an easy way to do it apart from File -> New Burn Folder (unlike a new folder, which is shift apple n, apple n is actually new window like say Internet Explorer, Safari, or a plethora of other things. By the way, whats the key board short cut for a new explorer window? Windows E. Sure that makes sense, and the short cut while you're in explorer? Still Windows E. Control N doesn't quite work the way it should (doesn't even create a new folder either, just sits there)).

So we head off to System Preferences, click Keyboard and Mouse and then Keyboard Shortcuts. This is a new one, so we'll click the the little plus sign thats there. We can add it to all applications, but we don't want that, we're only after Finder. So we select 'Finder' from the Appllication menu and the command we're chasing is "New Burn Folder", so we put that in there as well. Since Shift Apple B for me is already taken by Fugu's "Secure Copy", we'll make it Shift Control Apple B (hey I'm a glutton). I then hit Add. Then when we scroll down the list its there at the bottom. Funky.

So what we need to do now is restart the application. Because we're using Finder this isn't as obvious as restarting say Safari or Mail, but still rather easy within the GUI. Click on the Apple Menu, Force Quit. It gives us a list of applications and one of those is Finder. Now we can't force quit it because the option changes to 'relaunch'. Ensure you're not doing anything in Finder (like say a massive copy operation) and click the button. Finder will be active and if you click on 'File' you will notice your brand new shortcut there with the keyboard combo.

any questions?

Re:Window Management

[macshome]

Just because it doesn't have a direct keystroke by default it doesn't mean you need the mouse. Like I said before you can just use the keys to navigate the menus if you like.

1. Open System Preferences and turn on full keyboard access. If you want to be able to navigate all controls in dialog boxes then select that option as well.
2. Read the list of keystrokes that is there, you can add your own or modify as needed. By default I see that "Move focus to menu bar" is control-F2.
3. Press control-F2 and the menu bar activates. Now I can just use the arrow keys to navigate to any item I want.

If I want automation I can script the GUI just like on Windows. If I really want to get crazy I can turn on speech recognition for the menu bar.

So if someone can't find a way to avoid the mouse between the three ways I just listed they aren't trying very hard.

Re:Window Management

[macshome]

Yeah, that's because the bought Shake from someone else and it came like that. Since there is a large installed base of high-end installs for it I suppose they thought better about making a radical change in it.

Re:Window Management

[The Spoonman]

No, but the vast majority of entries I actually use do have shortcuts.

Well, as long as your needs are covered, I guess it's ok.

Mac OS X has a task bar? Are you posting from an alternate universe or something?

Sorry, menu bar.

Re:Window Management

[mac.man25]

If Apple could design a laptop mouse that looked like a one-button mouse but could act like a two button mouse (detect which side you press it) that would be genius. Or maybe allow replacing the button somehow. Also give me a Thinkpad-style trackpoint option, I found those far superior to any touchpad.

Apple does have two buttons, if you want to rightclick you just put two fingers on the track pad and click normally. As far as the trackpoint goes, I like it for small screens, but when you start getting into larger ones it get's to be interesting. Not that I don't like it, I'm just not very good at it.

Re:Window Management

[The One and Only]

Single-tasking is what humans are optimized for. There's a reason IQ goes down when you try to do more than one thing at a time.

Well of course if you divide your attention along multiple tasks, you won't do as well on any one task. That's called subdividing a finite amount of resources. Coding is a singletasking activity--that's why on Mac OS X, Xcode can easily be set to maximize itself. Editing video is a singletasking activity--that's why Final Cut Pro takes up the entire screen by design. Answering emails, instant messaging, and web surfing aren't singletasking activities--that's why iChat, Mail, and Safari don't take up the whole screen. Mac OS X leaves the design choice of whether an app maximizes to the application because some applications are singletasking and others aren't.

Re:Window Management

[dscruggs]

Any activitiy that requires the consumption or transmission of information is a single-tasking activity. If more people single-tasked those, we would have much better interpersonal communications overall. How many times has someone said RTFA on Slashdot? The problem isn't that they didn't RTFA, it's that they simultaneously tried to do other things while browsing the article. I'm a drummer. One of the first things a decent drummer learns is that it's impossible to do two things at one time. The illusion of a drummer doing a lot of things at once - creating multiple overlapping patterns on the ride cymbal, the bass drum and the snare drum - is called independence. But it's only an illusion. S/he is doing just one thing in a very focused way. But that doesn't matter. The bottom line for me is that I *want* Safari to maximize to fill the screen, and I bet the vast majority of other users do to. No amount of twisted psychobabble is going to change that fundamental desire. The fact that there is even a discussion of this and other problematic UI elements indicates that that they are, in fact, problems. There is no discussion about, say, the mouse pointer because everyone agrees Apple made good decisions there.

Re:Window Management

[The One and Only]

Whenever I'm reading something in Safari, the act of reading itself focuses me enough that I don't need to maximize--I don't even see the other windows. And most people who lack the ability to focus like that are usually natural multitaskers. I don't think there's a large number of regular users who have that unique combination of being easy to distract and wanting to focus on a single task--and those who do exist could easily hide or close any distracting programs to avoid distraction. People want to maximize Safari because they're used to Windows and afraid of change.

Re:Window Management

[abertoll]

"One of the most common interface problems is that people click the wrong button in some instance, or both buttons simultaneously with random results. For novice users, a single button is a much, much, much better option."

Uhhh, yeah it would be way too hard to have a setting in the OS that would make both buttons the same for all those "novice users." I can't even live without a scroll wheel anymore. As for your points about advanced users, don't you think that "optimal" number of buttons may be two or three instead of one? Why jump into mentioning four or five buttons.

No one is saying that more buttons are always better than less buttons. What we are saying is that one is too few. The very fact that I have to use my other HAND to hold down the ctrl key is proof that one is too few.

As for developer practices, the only point you've made is that there should be a minimum standard. But why should that standard be one button? Why not make a mouse with no buttons where you have to hit a key to make a regular click? That would be an even easier standard for the developers.

Apple should ship with a fully functional mouse, and if they want they can have all the buttons do the same thing until you change the setting.

But it was a good argument.

Re:Window Management

[robin]

Thinkpads have always had at least three buttons.

I don't see why there can't be three physical buttons on the Apple trackpad, all mapped to the same "left click" action by default. Then users would have the choice. As a previous poster said, the chords to use the "missing buttons" in X applications are revolting.

Re:Window Management

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Uhhh, yeah it would be way too hard to have a setting in the OS that would make both buttons the same for all those "novice users."

Yes, that would be too hard. First, novice users don't change default settings. They don't know how, or even that they can and most are afraid to do anything new lest they break something. Second, because the default setting is two buttons and has been for a long time, software makers design software that requires two buttons. Novice users thus lose the ability to use these software packages properly, causing even more confusion. That is why one button, needs to be the default setup, which is exactly what Apple has done.

I can't even live without a scroll wheel anymore. As for your points about advanced users, don't you think that "optimal" number of buttons may be two or three instead of one? Why jump into mentioning four or five buttons.

The optimal number of buttons is different for each person, I imagine. The problem is, having one of those buttons an almost useless one most of the time is less than optimal for almost everyone. Using the same mouse on Windows and OS X, I have one more useful button on OS X, because the functions are assigned by me, not the guy who wrote Wordpad and had no useful things to put in that menu.

What we are saying is that one is too few.

One is too few, only for more advanced users. And those users almost always buy a new mouse that fits their needs anyway.

The very fact that I have to use my other HAND to hold down the ctrl key is proof that one is too few.

Why do you have this problem? Do you have an old mouse that does not have multiple buttons? Do you have a new mouse that you couldn't figure out how to enable the extra buttons? Do you have a trackpad and you can't reach with one hand because you have really short fingers? Be specific.

As for developer practices, the only point you've made is that there should be a minimum standard. But why should that standard be one button? Why not make a mouse with no buttons where you have to hit a key to make a regular click? That would be an even easier standard for the developers.

I'm not sure this is even deserving of a response. There should be one button, by default, because users have an easier time using one button as compared two or zero by default. Putting zero would encourage developers to not use mice at all, which is less useful in most applications. The short answer is, because decades of usability testing have show that 1 button mice are the best compromise and because if you look at Windows and OS X today you can see a lot fewer usability problems on OS X, simply because of this one item. It is not as though this is not mentioned in numerous texts on usability. It is not some new idea I just came up with, but the consensus of the industry.

Apple should ship with a fully functional mouse, and if they want they can have all the buttons do the same thing until you change the setting.

Umm, Apple does ship with a fully functional, multi-button mouse. It does have only one button in the default configuration, which you can change, in software, on a per-user basis. Get with the times.

Re:Window Management

[ceoyoyo]

I wouldn't mind two, but three is too many. If you need three buttons, plug in a mouse. I'm sure there are people who like four buttons, or five, or six!

You're pointing out a flaw in a non-native windowing system that doesn't provide convenient ways to do things without a three button mouse.

Re:Window Management

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Are you a usability expert? I just want to know, because you spend a lot of time talking as if you are. This is not a criticism, just a question.

I've done usability testing professionally and had formal and informal education on the topic. My company ships me to a conference every now and again so I stay current. That said, I may be an "expert" compared to some people, but I've never published on the subject and it is not my primary expertise.

Tech support with GUIs is a setup. Explaining the right vs.left button is nothing compared to trying to explain scrolling to someone who doesn't know it by that name, or trying to walk someone through something that's slightly different on your screen because of a version mismatch. This isn't a mouse issue, it's an issue with the difficulty of effectively delivering remote tech support.

The problem of remote support is difficult, especially for hardware, but that is certainly not the only source of problems with multi-button mice. As I said, during usability tests, which are usually accomplished simply by giving users tasks and then recording everything they do, this is a common problem to see. There is no remote communication issue in these circumstances.

'm guilty of having to think of the difference between left and right when someone gives me directions, but I don't click the wrong button any more than I mistype my password or make other inadvertent or clumsy mistakes. I'm guessing this is the same for almost everyone. This is not a mouse issue, but a human dexterity issue.

This isn't a matter of dexterity, so much as "muscle memory." repetitive behaviors can condition a reflex. A reasonably good typist does not think "I need to type a 'Y'" and then consciously move their finger to that key, they simply think, 'Y' and move their fingers in a conditioned way. Here's an exercise, try drawing the layout of a keyboard and each letter without using your fingers. Now try it by thinking of a letter and filling in the location. You might notice your finger twitch sometimes as you do this. It is memory, but a different kind than normal memorization. The same is true for mouse clicks, except that it is not consistent enough to train properly for people who do not use the same applications a lot.

Getting rid of a button doesn't fix it, it just moves your clumsy errors to occurring at the menu bar.

Again, this is not being clumsy, it is not knowing which button to press because it is not a reflexive behavior like typing is. This is especially true because some novice users become trained to hit both buttons at once and it works most of the time with a failure rate too small to keep them from being conditioned.

If your father truly forgets which button does which, I'll be impressed in a clinical sense that his memory is so selectively bad with this, but works just fine with email addresses.

My father always beats me at trivial pursuit. He can cite all sorts of obscure financial laws from memory. His memory is above average. The issue is, he uses a dozen different programs some of which have functions he needs in the right-click menu and all of which have functions he needs via left clicking. Keeping straight which are which is a very difficult task for normal memorization. This is literally hundreds of instances to memorize, some of which he accesses less than once a year. It isn't repetitive enough to train muscle memory and it is enough individual items to challenge even a person like him with a really good memory.

Is it really that much easier for her to use a one-button mouse, or were there other OS differences she found easier to work with on a Mac?

It was not the only thing she found easier, but it was one big factor. She's one of those people with a notebook with a list of steps for every single task she accomplishes. "Click the Firefox icon, select the bookmarks menu, select e-mail, Click the OK button, click the subject line of the first message,

Re:Window Management

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The world shouldn't be designed for idiots, but it is. But for the love of god, don't ignore the people who can tell left from right!

It's not just not being able to tell left from right, it's not being able to memorize every single instance of where one needs to right click versus left click, since this behavior is not consistent. It is also all those people trying to use a stylus, or braille board or any alternative interface. Is Stephen Hawking an idiot because he needs to use an input for the disabled?

Re:Window Management

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Are you sure about this? Apple's very own Shake application lists a 3 button mouse right in the requirements

There are a small number of exceptions to this rule, including some X11 applications, bad ports, and a few high end graphics applications like Shake and Maya. For the most part, however, people using alternative input schemes will find the high-end graphics programs unusable anyway. So yes, there are some exceptions to the rule.

Re:Window Management

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It was interesting that you mentioned that single button mice force better design in Mac apps. I think this is kind of funny because the I've always felt the lack of a second button has resulted in Mac context menus that aren't very good relative to Windows. I've found that if I use a two button mouse on a Mac or hit CTRL+CLICK, that the menus were small and lacking features.

The benefit is for power users and novices. Novices are confused by multiple buttons. Power users customize their interfaces. By default the right click menu in InDesign has 17 items in it on both the mac and PC. I actually use four of those items regularly. But, since all of those items are replicated in the regular menus and right-click menus are not mandatory I have customized that menu to include those four items and another 8 I do want to use all the time. The end result is in Windows I have to pick among 17 items to get 4 of the 12 I want and I have to go elsewhere for 8 of them. On the mac, I get all the options I want and none I don't want.

The mac is not perfect and they could make it a whole lot easier to change the contextual menu functionality on the fly. But the fact that I can customize this without losing functionality is directly related to the fact that the OS and program are designed to work for users of a single button mouse.

Re:Window Management

[abertoll]

Umm, Apple does ship with a fully functional, multi-button mouse. It does have only one button in the default configuration, which you can change, in software, on a per-user basis. Get with the times.

Uhh, really? Ok if you say so. All the Intel MacBooks I've had to work with recently only have one button mice, not to mention one button on the touchpad. But I guess if they're shipping with multi-button mice then they're doing what I suggested anyway.

Re:Window Management

[robin]

True. But that non-native windowing system does come with the operating system...

It's not a showstopper; I bought a Macbook despite its single unfeasibly large button. It still irritates me though -- I don't see why it can't at least do the Mighty Mouse thing of having a left and a right side. Having lost the religious war with the mice, I don't see why there's any point in continuing the same dumb game with the trackpads.

Hey, a thought: divide it into six chunks, and it could be configured to do everything: 1 big button, left/right buttons and left/middle/right buttons.

Re:Window Management

[dave420]

It's time consuming. I'm using my computer to work, not as a performance piece.

Re:Window Management

[dave420]

I don't want my GUI to determine how applications can be viewed. The GUI has no idea what the application is doing, how it's displaying its information, how it's being used. It is not the GUI's place to figure that shit out. Quick access to minimising, maximising and restoring a window is, to me at least, very useful. I'm pretty sure I know what I want to do more than my GUI does, so I prefer if I can decide.

The way OSX works would be perfect if OSX knew what each application was doing. The problem is, it doesn't. That's when problems arrise, and the GUI becomes slower to use. That's not what I look for.

Re:Window Management

[dave420]

Because how does OSX know that the application isn't going to want to display more information than that? What if the application's display is stretchy, and can accomodate any size? The operating system sticking its oar in is bound to get in the way at some point. As for your problem with windows, as others have said, just resize the window manually. Windows does exactly the same as OSX with regard to resizing windows, it just doesn't assume it knows better than you do.

Re:Window Management

[Moofie]

If you're in a hurry, push the button. If you wish to obsessively fiddle with window size, do it manually.

The computer is not psychic, and there is no "do what I mean" button.

Re:Window Management

[Anonymous Coward]

The way OSX works would be perfect if OSX knew what each application was doing.
The problem is, it doesn't. That's when problems arrise, and the GUI becomes slower to use. That's not what I look for.

If you're talking about the "zoom" button, OS X doesn't control what that button does - it hands it off to the application, and the application decides what "zoom" means. It's supposed to toggle between the "standard state" and "user state," so IMHO Apple's mistake is in not making it look like a toggle button.

If the green button meant "maximize," then the OS could handle it by making the window fill the screen, and it wouldn't have to know how the application wants to display its information.

Read this if you want to know how zoom is supposed to work.

That's good and all...

[XxtraLarGe]

But OS X 10.5 is pretty much in the can. Right now, Apple is focusing on bug fixes/performance tweaks. Some of these are good suggestions, maybe they'll take them up for OS X 10.6 guys...

Re:That's good and all...

[the linux geek]

In all probability, Apple is holding back some fairly important key technologies to be included in a later dev release. Remember that

a. Apple is secretive by nature
b. Leopard is still very early in development

Re:That's good and all...

[Registered Coward v2]

But OS X 10.5 is pretty much in the can. Right now, Apple is focusing on bug fixes/performance tweaks. Some of these are good suggestions, maybe they'll take them up for OS X 10.6 guys...

Besides, Apple needs another excuse to screw (err - I forgot this is AAPL not MSFT) ^H^H^H^H^H spend $100 to experience the joys of Mac.

Re:That's good and all...

[Bastian]

a. Apple is secretive by nature
Apple tends to be secretive about a lot of its stuff, but in the ramp-up to a new release of OS X they always get into bragging a LOT. Developer feature previews and what not are plastered all over Apple's website. I have NEVER seen an example of Apple waiting until launch date to unveil a "key technology" in their OS.

b. Leopard is still very early in development

Huh? Apple has already shipped more than one 10.5 developer preview so far. I believe they have a lot of folks in Cupertino already shifted over to it (as a beta test), and it's slated to come out sometime this spring. They first announced it to people over a year ago, so they've probably been working on it for at least two years. That is not early development.

Re:That's good and all...

[soft_guy]

It is hard to be secretive about an OS when you pretty much have to give copies to developers if you want third party applications to not break when you ship the new OS.

Re:That's good and all...

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Better 100$ than 500$..

Now, who said macs where more expensive? :P

Re:That's good and all...

[Moofie]

I wonder if they have some sort of Agreement about Non-Disclosure. Hmm...wonder what you'd call it? Golly, I have to write this up and get to the patent office. Seems like this might be a ridiculously common notion that is used in all sorts of different disciplines. I'll make a mint!

Re:That's good and all...

[kimvette]

OK. fair enough. Let's compare the cost of the various platforms:

Windows XP to Vista = $499 ($499*1), versions were five years apart, so we're talking under $100/yr if you go with Ultimate
OS X 10.0 to 10.5 = $645 ($129*5)

Cost of Linux to upgrade your distro every six months over five years, based on 2001 prices for DVD-R media: $20.00 ($2.00/disc * 10 discs)
Cost of Linux to upgrade your distro every six months over five years, based on today's prices for DVD-R media: $5.00, if that much

Analysis:
    OS X($645) > Windoze ($499) > Linux ($20 tops)

  Ergo, to upgrade over the same time period, the Mac is more expensive.

See, you can skew the data to prove whatever your preconceived notion is. :)

Re:That's good and all...

[eldepeche]

Yeah, but you only get Windows upgrades twice a decade, so it evens out.

Re:That's good and all...

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

MacOS X 10.0, out 24/03/2001, price 129$
MacOS X 10.1, out 25/09/2001, price 0$ if you bought 10.0, 129$ otherwise
MacOS X 10.2, out 24/08/2002, price 129$
MacOS X 10.3, out 24/10/2003, price 129$
MacOS X 10.4, out 29/10/2005, price 129$

that's 4 times 129$, 516$, IF you come from MacOS 9 and IF you went through all versions.

Now, where's the price of your WinXP licence? Came with the Computer? I had MacOS X come with the computer too, that's one 129$ less.

Which is what now, between MacOS X and Windows?

Re:That's good and all...

[soft_guy]

I wonder if they have some sort of Agreement about Non-Disclosure. Hmm...wonder what you'd call it? Golly, I have to write this up and get to the patent office. Seems like this might be a ridiculously common notion that is used in all sorts of different disciplines. I'll make a mint! Of course they have an NDA for developers. Have you heard the old saying about "two can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead"?

You can't ship copies of a "secret OS" to thousands of peope all over the world and not have screen shots to show up on the internet. NDA or no NDA.

Re:That's good and all...

[kimvette]

Basing it on:
  10.0 coming with the Mac
  BUYING the 10.1 upgrade (I know people who paid for the upgrade)
  Upgrading to 10.5 (since it'll be out in the Vista retail availability timeframe, give or take a month)

So: 10.1($129)_10.2($129)+10.3($129)+10.4($129)+10.5($ 129) = $645

As I said, you can skew the numbers to prove any conclusion you like. Or, we could compare, say, SCO's "IP license" for each Linux upgrade, raising the Linux total to $6,990, making Linux the most expensive option of the three (that would be Microsoft's desire).

Re:That's good and all...

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Being realistic would be quite better, no?

If a buy a Civic and pay to swap the engine, get new mags, get a new paint, get new tires, blablabla and get to a total bill of 200 000$, do this means that a Civic is more expensive than a Mercedez?

Re:That's good and all...

[dhollist]

"They first announced it to people over a year ago, so they've probably been working on it for at least two years. That is not early development."

... unless you're Microsoft and you're on the Vista development team. Then two years WOULD be early development.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista:

"Microsoft has stated that the scheduled release date for worldwide availability is January 30, 2007.[2] These release dates come more than five years after the release of its predecessor, Windows XP, making it the longest time span between major releases of Windows."

Re:That's good and all...

[alx5000]

Sure! Because doing all that for a Mercedes is peanuts...!

Re:That's good and all...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It is hard to be secretive about an OS when you pretty much have to give copies to developers if you want third party applications to not break when you ship the new OS.

Not really. The version you give them can be a branch that includes the features that are likely to affect third-party applications and has all the new APIs, but may not necessarily include all the new features the OS will add on.

Re:That's good and all...

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I think you missed the point...

Have a good day!

Re:That's good and all...

[walt-sjc]

I have 3 macs in the house. Apple offers a "family pack" 5 user $199 version which cuts the price to me to $66 per upgrade per machine. I also have 3 windows machines. All I can say is HOLY SHIT it's expensive to upgrade windows.
Of course my 5 Linux machines cost NOTHING to upgrade.

I'm quite happy with Apple's pricing thankyouverymuch. And no fscking activation either.

Re:That's good and all...

[ceoyoyo]

Screen shots? The WWDC preview of Leopard was available online before WWDC was even over.

Re:That's good and all...

[644bd346996]

Don't forget your Symantec/McAfee/Microsoft anti-virus protection racket money. That really does add to the TCO, even if you only buy security software the day after thanksgiving with huge rebates.

Also, Apple gets away with their frequent expensive releases because they add new features (and performance). Microsoft will be hard pressed to release major new features every 1-2 years. And, as many have pointed out, the family packs can be a really good deal, especially since those who have been using OS X from the start probably have several macs.

Re:That's good and all...

[yeber]

and hopefully they'll revamp the yet to be released "spaces" to be more like the other 'nix workspace managers. Sometimes the eyecandy really gets in the way of functionality.

Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[owlnation]

Can't put widgets on the Desktop? Um, you can actually - but you need a widget to do it. The Devmode widget for one.

And that solves the whole "no date on the desktop" one - and probably some of the others too.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[Col. Klink (retired)]

And that solves the whole "no date on the desktop" one - and probably some of the others too.

Just run ical and today's date appears in the calendar icon.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[Thumper_SVX]

Well, there's a date on my desktop... I have my iCal in my dock, and I launch it on logon because I use it quite a bit. When the program's active, the icon displays the date. Where's the problem?

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[wumpus188]

No additional widgets required. Just open Terminal and do this

defaults write com.apple.dashboard devmode YES

After that, press F12 and start dragging widget.. then (while still dragging) press F12 again and drop widget on the desktop.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[alisson]

You can also use Onyx for that. It has a few cool dashboard options.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[stewbacca]

I believe they were complaining because they wish the program didn't need to be open.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[Thumper_SVX]

I do concede that point, but OSX is designed to have programs open all the time. I'd rather have that date in my dock than my desktop cluttered with information I only occasionally refer to. I launch iCal at logon, so I never have to worry about launching it... and I close the window but the program's still there updating the dock. That's another reason I like the way OSX does things. With 2Gb of RAM, plenty of HD space and a dual-core CPU there's no reason to terminate apps unless you really have to.

I guess this is sort of a "preference" item.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[Moofie]

Why?

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[saddino]

Another solution is to use the shareware apps Amnesty Widget Broswer or Amnesty Singles, which unlike the "devmode" trick actually allow you to set the window level your Dashboard widgets stay in on the desktop.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[iamgnat]

They are still wrong. You can set it up in the International Sys Pref pane in 10.4 (I forget how to do it in 10.4, but it was possible there too). www.macosxhints.com has had the info about how to do it ever since 10.4 came out (and they had the info for pre-10.4 versions well before then). I would go insane if I didn't have my date. Personally the writer comes across as an idiot. He obviously has not bothered to read any of the Mac sites out there that tell you how to get around most of his issues (I do agree with his look&feel argument and can see is point on the window sizes (though I prefer the single corner myself)). For example, why drill down to your Applications folder? Why not just drag it into your Dock (right side of the break next to the Trash)? Then you can right click and there is everything. -dave

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone know how to put normal windows inside the Dashboard?

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[Coward Anonymous]

Mod iCal post up. This is the most convenient date display I've ever seen on any OS (Windows, X, CDE, etc.), It's large, legible and very easy to access. This problem is licked on OS X.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[meanween]

I think I tried this before and the end result is that the widget, while on your desktop is also on top of all other windows... All the time. Or maybe this was just the result with the widget I was using at the time.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[jargoone]

And if you're not running iCal, it shows the wrong fucking date. Convenient my ass.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[Odineye]

This assumes both that you want iCal running in the background all the time, and that you keep your dock exposed (which is illegal in some states...) I prefer to have the dock hidden in order to retain that visible screen real estate for program display. Given this, I wouldn't consider that idea a fix. Also - Since we are talking about fixes to the OS, using a separate program, which you must run in addition to the OS to compensate for it seems an inelegant fix at best.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[not-enough-info]

Mod parent up informative.
Not only is it a problem, but Apple Engineers know it's a problem and don't know how to fix it. Just look back a few versions and you'll see that the date in the icon stuck when you quit iCal, thus if you let it stay quit for a few days you would see a date in the recent past and think it's legit. Fast forward to v2.0 and you'll see they went back to "Just set it back to July 17 when it's not running" because at least then the user knows for certain that it's the wrong date when he sees it. (unless of course it actually is mid July...)

Never even mind that as you launch new apps, minimize windows, or use the Magnification the icon slides around. I don't know about you, but tracking an icon on a dock with potentially 30 or 40 tiny icons for me is a pain in the ass. I just want a quick affirmation of the current date without having to question if it's right or not. F13 dashboard will have to do for now.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[TheRaven64]

I have done that, and it's very useful. The thing that really amazed me about TFA was this:

2. Renaming Isn't Easy. The process of renaming files is highly mouse-centric on the Mac. There's no F2 option (as there is on Windows) that lets you select the file and press F2 to expose the filename-editing mode. Note the 2 there? The second most irritating thing about using a Mac is that you need to use the mouse to change file names. Unless, of course, you think to hit the second largest key on your keyboard, enter, in which case you will find that you don't need the mouse at all.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[godawful]

There is actually another way to get the date on the desktop, I recall seeing this somewhere, but I don't remember where, so I can't give credit, only say "it wasn't me"...

Go to System Preferences -> International -> Formats

In the Dates section, click on Customize, drag the day of the month and day into the input line. Highlight them and copy it from the input line and Cancel back to the Formats Pane.

Now, in the Times section, click on Customize, In the input line, you can paste them. When you close, they will now show up in the date on the top left of the menu babr.

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[macron1]

the terminal entry is not even required, just activate the dashboard, then click that "+" thing in a circle that reveals all the widgets available on your mac. Then click and hold any widget and drag it out of that widgets list, and then press F12 to deactivate the dashboard while still holding on to the widget. you should then be able to drop the widget on to your desktop. next time you activate the dashboard, your desktop widget will be subsumed into the actual dashboard thingamagig. good times

Re:Not sure all of these are correct...exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also show the Menu Bar clock in a window, which (if you select Digital) includes the date.

System Preferences - Date & Time - Clock - View In: Window; View As: Digital.

Transparency is configurable.

Noooooooooo

[Frankie70]

But it(Tiger) is not perfect.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.

What I think they should change...

[garcia]

I come from an OS/2, Windows, and Linux (some X but mostly CLI as of recent) background. I have a Mac (because of the Mini) and I just cannot get used to using it. In fact, I dislike it in almost every single way. The only reason it continues to be my desktop machine is because my SMP box has a bad CPU fan on one of the chips and I'm too cheap to replace both.

* I hate the fact that I can never find *anything* I'm looking for. I spend entirely too long searching around for applications, their support files, and system configuration options. I realize that Apple designs these things for people who aren't familiar with computers, but fuck, it makes it hard for someone that is quite comfy with Linux and Windows configurations.

* I hate the fact that I have no idea what the fuck is going on behind the scenes with the Mac. Yeah, XP has gotten to this point but I guess because I have a basic idea built up over the years from other versions of Windows, I don't mind as much. Being built on Unix, I would expect to understand more about what OS X is doing -- but I don't.

* I really don't like the fact that I *could* do stuff on the CLI but I can never find out how. The files aren't in the locations I would expect.

As I said, I use it as my desktop (which is basically web browsing) but that's because I don't have a choice. I have a friend that is amazed as how often mine "pinwheels". I have a 1.42 with a GB of RAM and it still pinwheels constantly. "That's just not right," he says. I agree.

While I don't think Apple should be like Windows or Linux or OS/2, I really do think that they should reconsider their design choices or make some easy to find options that would change their design to fit the needs of everyone if they so choose (like putting the minimize and close options on the "correct" side of the window ;))

Re:What I think they should change...

[QuoteMstr]

All your points will apply to any modern operating system, not just Apples. Computers have a certain unavoidable complexity, and if you don't bother to learn how they work, they won't.

If you don't like OS X, why not install Linux on that machine? Then at least your configuration files will be where you expect them.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Wudbaer]

Regarding the beachballing of death: Give your Mini a real harddisk if you still have the stock drive in it. The stock drive at least in the first series G4 MacMinis is an atrocity. Put in some faster 2.5'' drive and it will be a new machine (at least that did it for mine, before it was excruciatingly slow, now it is really fine).

Re:What I think they should change...

[Lobster Quadrille]

Maybe it's just me, but I've found the CLI to be extremely useful and intuitive. Granted, I like it better on linux, and most of my CLI interaction takes place there, but OSX is familiar enough.

Likewise, maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but it's not too hard to tell what is going on behind the scenes. It feels to me a lot like KDE- a GUI with a powerful OS hiding (not too far) behind it.

Re:What I think they should change...

[garcia]

If you don't like OS X, why not install Linux on that machine? Then at least your configuration files will be where you expect them.

I have a Linux machine already and from what everyone says, Macs are the best. I'm trying, I really am but I just can't see why everyone is so excited about them when it just isn't any different from any other OS.

Re:What I think they should change...

[z-kungfu]

The files aren't in the locations I would expect. uhhhh... locate it's a command, there are man pages, google is you friend, move on

Re:What I think they should change...

[Recovering Hater]

I realize that Apple designs these things for people who aren't familiar with computers, but fuck, it makes it hard for someone that is quite comfy with Linux and Windows configurations.

Seriously, I'm not trying to troll, but Linux is not really like the flavor of unix Apple has built their OS up from. Maybe you could try delving into the way Darwin and FreeBSD organize their file system.

Here are some links that might be a jumping off point:

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Co nceptual/KernelProgramming/BSD/chapter_11_section_ 3.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000905-CH214-TPXREF 103

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_sys tem)

Re:What I think they should change...

[jbssm]

I have a 1.42 with a GB of RAM and it still pinwheels constantly

Yeah, your friend is right, I think you messed so much with OSX trying to gain control of what you really didn't needed to, that you ended up messing with something you shouldn't.
I have 1.5Gb myself and it practically never pinwheels (using your term), even when I'm using demanding apps like Photoshop.

Also, I come from XP and I also tried Linux (Debian, Gentoo, Suse) ... but sorry to say folks, Linux it's just not ready for desktop, someone that uses their computer at work for more than programming just wants his computer to work, I don't want to have to configure everything with some strange files at /etc (yeah I know, read the documentation you say ... well while I'm reading the damn documentation I could be working, so, no thanks). I also don't want to be re-installing my operating system every 6 months in order for it to behave ok (I'm talking about windows).

So, bottom line is, OSX is a very good operating system, it's not perfect ... but it's likely the better one out there right now (just like democracy).

Re:What I think they should change...

[bobalu]

I have the same background, but let's face it, it's just a different system and there's a lot in there. It's frustrating because you know all this stuff and think you should be able to dive right in, but it takes a good deal of spelunking to actually get it together.

I'm going through the same thing. I've been using my Macs to do video editing and as a user I'm fine, but getting down to the system can be a little confusing. Just roll up your sleeves and let go of your preconceived notions of how things should be. Eventually you'll get it. I've actually had more luck with the Java examples than some of the other system stuff, but mostly because I'm not that familiar with Apache.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Chief Camel Breeder]

For finding stuff, applications in particular, try installing Quicksilver.

Re:What I think they should change...

[russellh]

Might I recommend the book Mac OS X for Unix Geeks. Try the System Overview at Apple (that doc is a PDF so I linked to the search results instead). And check out Darwin guides.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's not Microsoft. That's the basic reason.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you are saying is that osX is bad because it isn't linux?

Re:What I think they should change...

[zuricher]

did you try quicksilver? http://quicksilver.blacktree.com/
just hit ctrl space and most of your problems are gone

Re:What I think they should change...

[Night Goat]

The key is to train yourself not to fuck with OSX. In Windows and Linux, it's fun and beneficial to tinker with various config files to try and optimize things, but in OSX you really don't need to in most cases. I had to wean myself off of digging around in the operating system's directories and get back to just using my computer for what it was I got it for. Things have been going quite well! I do run a program called MacJanitor once in a while to tidy up the logs, and sometimes I repair the permissions with Disk Utility, but beyond that I let the computer do what it needs to do.

Re:What I think they should change...

[yelvington]

The locate utility exists in OS X, but locatedb is not built or maintained by default, so it doesn't work. This is just one of hundreds of examples of how Apple has done a half-assed job of embracing the power of the underlying toolkit. Yes, you can fix it yourself, eventually, but the whole point of the Mac is that things are supposed to Just Work. If I wanted it to be broken when delivered, I'd be using Windows.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks....I couldn't agree more. I teach in a Mac dominated school and am continuously frustrated by how difficult it is to find the simplest of things. There is also a definite lack of feedback with certain actions; nothing happens....no sound, no evidence of a program opening, and no visual cues until the program actually does open (five times over with impatient students).

More than anything, I'm amazed at how much time gets wasted by students playing with zooming icons in the taskbar/dock and the dashboard. I'd love to make these go away once and for all, but I don't have the power to do this for 500+ students, and the IT dept doesn't have the resources to be customizing installs.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Abcd1234]

I hate the fact that I can never find *anything* I'm looking for.

This is because you're unfamiliar with OSX.

I hate the fact that I have no idea what the fuck is going on behind the scenes with the Mac.

Also because you're unfamiliar with OSX.

I really don't like the fact that I *could* do stuff on the CLI but I can never find out how.

Also because you're unfamiliar with OSX.

Here, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: OSX isn't Linux or Windows. It works differently. As a result, you might actually have to *learn something about it*. Clearly what you want is for OSX to be exactly like Linux or Windows. But the very fact that it *isn't* is what makes it attractive to so many people. So get your learn on and quit bitching, ffs.

PS. I'm not an OSX user. But people who bitch about a product because it isn't what *they* want it to be really tick me off, especially if it's clear they haven't bothered to try and adapt. I'd have the same problem with a Windows user who switched to Linux and then whined about how they couldn't use regedit.

Re:What I think they should change...

[admdrew]

I don't want to have to configure everything with some strange files at /etc

I also don't want to be re-installing my operating system every 6 months in order for it to behave ok

Funny thing, I've had to do neither, and I know I'm not alone in that.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

So the problem is that you're unfamiliar with it? Weren't these problems with OS/2, Windows, and Linux when you first started using them? I'm willing to bet money that more people have your (unfamiliar => poor design) problem with linux than with OS X. -jV

Re:What I think they should change...

[Pope]

I hate the fact that I can never find *anything* I'm looking for. I spend entirely too long searching around for applications, their support files, and system configuration options. I realize that Apple designs these things for people who aren't familiar with computers, but fuck, it makes it hard for someone that is quite comfy with Linux and Windows configurations.

Applications live in the Applications or Utilities folders. Support files? Depends on how much of a sadist the programmers were, but they're generally bundled within the .app bundles, or show up in ~/Library/Application Support/ Preference files are almost always in ~/Library/Preferences/ like you'd expect. It's far better than Windows' insistence on *hiding* user files in %AppData%.

System Configuration options? You mean the ones that are accessed from the always-available System Preferences? You seriously didn't look very hard, did you? Hell, for deeper hacking go READ osxhints.com.

I hate the fact that I have no idea what the fuck is going on behind the scenes with the Mac. Yeah, XP has gotten to this point but I guess because I have a basic idea built up over the years from other versions of Windows, I don't mind as much. Being built on Unix, I would expect to understand more about what OS X is doing -- but I don't.

Why do you care what's going on "behind the scenes" so much? Go get a $free developer account at Apple, download all the Developer Tools, and start READING.

I really don't like the fact that I *could* do stuff on the CLI but I can never find out how. The files aren't in the locations I would expect.

Which files? Again, do some READING.

Honestly, almost all of your objections stem from the fact that you haven't put a single bit of effort to educate yourself about Mac OS X. You claim you're "quite comfy" with Linux and Windows, but you sure as hell didn't get that knowledge from osmosis. I only use Windows at work, and I know q bit more about some of the guts of the way it works because I did some READING.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Angostura]

It sounds to me as if you are really frustrated because you are not happy using it as an appliance, but want to poke around in the internals. The quickest way to become happy is probably to invest in a copy of Pogue's Mac OS X: The missing manual, or better for über-geeks - Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach by Amit Singh.

Some of your problems, I simply don't understand - applications tend to sit in /Applications or possibly ~/Applications.

Why would you need to find support files? If you need to, they will most likely be hiding in /Library along with their plist preferences.

If Safari or Firefox (you don't say what you are using) is pinwheeling frequently then there is clearly something wrong. My 800MHz G4 copes well enough.

I would try the excellent support forums at apple.com for some basic troubleshooting. It could be something as simple as a permissions problem.

Re:What I think they should change...

[yabos]

Why is it so hard for you to find applications? They're in /Applications or /Applications/Utilities. Unless YOU put them somewhere else this is where pretty much all applications will ever be. All the programs that ever need application support files are in a folder called intuitively /Library/Application Support. That's hard to figure out? Come on. Preferences are in the ~/Library/Preferences. I won't tell you what the ~/ is since it's the same as Linux.

And no big surprise some of the unix program config files are probably in different places than Linux. So what? Did you know where everything in Linux was when you first started using it? Hell no so why would you expect OS X's unix config files to be in the same places as Linux anyways?

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

"While I don't think Apple should be like Windows or Linux or OS/2"

Except you complain about position of the close button and that you can't find anything in the usual places?

Seriously, it's not that hard to find stuff on OS X, you're just not used to it.

Those aren't real OS X problems, you're just complaining that you haven't gotten used to it yet. And it sort of contradicts what you say about not wanting OS X to be like other OSes.

Re:What I think they should change...

[capsteve]

i'm trying not trolling, but you got to be kidding me: you're "reduced" to using a mac because you can't order online a couple $5-10 cpu fans and replace it in your main box? cause you're too cheap? i would think that a couple of replacement fan's are cheaper than a mac mini...

* command-F (Apple-F) brings up the find command. command-Space or command-space-option brings up spotlight for contextual searches. obviously you know this, but what exactly are you looking for that you can't find? application config/support files? in Library or ~/Library. what system config options? you say you're saavy with linux so the apple-variant of the bsd layout should be pretty familiar to you.

* what do you want to see that's happening behind the scenes? top in a terminal and activity monitor are good places to start...

*you could do stuff with the CLI, but don't know how? what do you mean by this? 'cause files aren't exactly in the places you expect? like c:/windows/system32 or /var/adm/log? every major OS and their variants will have their idiosyncracies, and you'll have to learn their variances...

i do sympathize with you that your 1.4ghz mini is pinwheeling so frequently... it shouldn't do this if all you are using it for is safari or firefox... after all it doesn't sound like you are pushing the capability of the box very much. maybe in your zeal to "control" you mac, you might have inadvertantly touched/moved/hosed some critical pieces of the OS, hence the poor performance/response. have you considered backing up your data and re-installing the OS? how about a harddrive swap? you could also run the mini from an external firewire HD, bypassing the internal drive... the mini's perform pretty nicely in tiger. or if you're really fed up with OSX, why not ditch it an install a ppc linux or bsd? fedora and openbsd should both workl on apple hardware.

Re:What I think they should change...

[MustardMan]

Are you on crack? You want them to enable locatedb and its resource and hard drive usage, for the 0.02% of people who are actually going to use it? The stuff people actually CARE ABOUT "just works". You linux nerds to get it into your head that Apple is not selling you a unix system. They are selling you a system that uses unix tools and foundations to provide a solid gui desktop experience. I switched to mac os because it has the capability to do the things I want it to do, while having a nice slick graphical interface, and having my hardware "just work". Expecting locatedb to be set up out of the box is like expecting X with KDE to be working - it's just not their target audience. Do you bitch and moan that you had to install xcode to get a compiler too?

Re:What I think they should change...

[trudyscousin]

* I hate the fact that I can never find *anything* I'm looking for. I spend entirely too long searching around for applications, their support files, and system configuration options. I realize that Apple designs these things for people who aren't familiar with computers, but fuck, it makes it hard for someone that is quite comfy with Linux and Windows configurations.

Drag the Applications folder to the Dock. When it's there, you can click it and hold, and voilà! you have a hierarchical menu worthy of that Start button thingy. (Note to self: avoid 'worthy' and 'start menu' in the same sentence.) Of course, you can drag your favorites there as well, and even lay them out on the Desktop if you want.

Support files? That's not quite so easily explained, but I'll try. For every user account, there exists a Library folder. And inside that folder is one called Application Support. And inside that one should be a folder with a name that suggests it belongs to a given application. Inside you'll find things like auxiliary applications and information that doesn't change (if the developer has followed the guidelines).

When it comes to information that does change, there is the Preferences folder, which is also located in your Library folder. Inside, you'll find files that have .plist extensions. Their names are strange; they're like the reverse Internet notation that's used in Java. (An example: "com.microsoft.Word.plist") Double-clicking these will put you in the Property List Editor, and you can go crazy (at your risk, of course).

There are exceptions to all these things, but you'll find the vast majority of applications follow these conventions.

* I hate the fact that I have no idea what the fuck is going on behind the scenes with the Mac. Yeah, XP has gotten to this point but I guess because I have a basic idea built up over the years from other versions of Windows, I don't mind as much. Being built on Unix, I would expect to understand more about what OS X is doing -- but I don't.

and

I have a friend that is amazed as how often mine "pinwheels". I have a 1.42 with a GB of RAM and it still pinwheels constantly. "That's just not right," he says. I agree.

I'm surprised to read you saying this, since you're an old Linux hand. Everything gets cached in OS X (as it does in every kind of Unix-like operating system, so I'm told), both in memory and on one's hard disk. Especially memory. 1GB isn't really enough, but at work we've found upgrading to 2 GB works wonders. When things are cached to your HD, well, remember that HDs are infinitely slower than RAM. Your "rainbow pizza of death" is really just the system's way of telling you it's busy (though on occasion it means something went terribly wrong), and in this case, it's probably going mad swapping things in and out of storage, be it RAM or HD space.

While I don't think Apple should be like Windows or Linux or OS/2, I really do think that they should reconsider their design choices or make some easy to find options that would change their design to fit the needs of everyone if they so choose (like putting the minimize and close options on the "correct" side of the window ;))

I don't. I've been using Mac OS as far back as when it was only 2.2. What you're describing might as well be the feeling I get when using Windows, which only goes to show that it's a matter of perspective, a very subjective thing indeed.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Bastian]

I hate the fact that I can never find *anything* I'm looking for. I spend entirely too long searching around for applications, their support files, and system configuration options. I realize that Apple designs these things for people who aren't familiar with computers, but fuck, it makes it hard for someone that is quite comfy with Linux and Windows configurations.

You're searching WAY too hard. All the apps are in a directory that's conveniently named "Applications." Their support files might be in the app's bundle, depending on what you're looking for, but most of them are in ~/Library. Preferences are in a directory that's conveniently named ~/Library/Preferences. Actual support files are in a directory that's conveniently called ~/Library/Application Support.

I really fail to understand why that could be harder for you to manage than Linux. Possibly the way that every app, distro, and person in Linux has to put their application support files in a different place has warped your mind. Or you've only been using that Mac for three days. But a Mac's hard disk organization being too complicated for you is not something that I would consider to be within the realm of possibility if you're comfortable with Linux.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Misanthropy]

Really? Since day one I've been delving into my mac. By tinkering around with plist files and other "behind the scenes" stuff I've figured out how to do stuff that's impossible to do with the gui tools, but has made OS X more useable (for me at least). Mind you it's not too many things but enough to make me glad that I dug a little deeper.

The only problem I have is that now I don't want to upgrade (using panther) because I'll have to redo everything after I reinstall the OS. Meh, Tiger wasn't worth the trouble and expense anyway.

Re:What I think they should change...

[0racle]

Spotlight works better then locate anyway. On top of that your Mac OS X does work as intended, if you want to use it as a UNIX workstation instead, well, is it really so hard to expect a UNIX admin to actually do some work?

Re:What I think they should change...

[Thumper_SVX]

And your average user is going to use locate... when? When they launch that command prompt that most OSX users don't even know exists? Sorry, doesn't fly. In the GUI you have Spotlight... that's essentially doing the same job for average Joe User.

Oh, so YOU want locate? Well, since you obviously know it exists and what it does you must be a power user... therefore you should either know how to enable the database maintenance or put a little effort into a two minute Google search to find the answer.

Your objections don't stand up. Remember, OSX is made for the average user... if you want your power tools that'll get you UNIX functionality you need to put in a little more work. However, that amount of work is still significantly less than your average UNIX requires to be user-friendly.

Oh, and in response to the GGP, you've obviously never used an flavor of UNIX other than Linux. Linux is NOT UNIX despite what some might want to tell you. It's inspired by UNIX but doesn't follow many of the forms that became common in true UNIX platforms. OSX is closer to BSD than Linux is, and as such I'm quite comfy in that environment having cut my teeth on NetBSD, FreeBSD and AT&T UNIX (yes, the real deal). Just because nothing is where you expect it coming from a hobbyist UNIX platform, doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. In fact, OSX has more in common with most commercial UNIX's (Unices?) than Linux will ever have. As a result, I think it's a better UNIX.

Just as an aside, is it wrong for Apple to make X11 an optional install that runs after the main GUI? No, because that's what OSX does. The average user doesn't need or want X11... and if you want or need X11 you're a power user almost by default. As such, you should be comfortable with installing it. If you really want to make OSX more Linux-like, download Fink and start installing some more GPL tools... I am a power user, and I'm glad I put in the extra work to learn OSX properly. I've used OS/2, Windows (since 2.0 and up to and including Vista), Mac (from the original MacOS to OSX), GEM, Linux, UNIX (various), AmigaOS, OS/400, S/36, and quite a number of embedded and RTOS's. I have to say that for me, OSX fits the bill. It does everything I want it to, very little that I don't. It's not perfect, but no OS has ever been perfect. I use it because it just works... because I can get my work done. I can tinker with the internals if I want to, but I rarely have to.

And by the way, app bundles are the bomb. Sure, they use a little more disk space... but disk space is cheap. Think of your applications as a folder (which they literally are in the UNIX filesystem) that contain all of the stuff you need to run the app including configs in some apps. Right click on an app and Show Package Contents sometime... it's quite educational. And download the dev packages and learn something about the OS. Even if you have no intention of developing software, the development kit is incredibly deep and will teach you more about the OS than you ever thought possible.

Re:What I think they should change...

[itsdapead]

Being built on Unix, I would expect to understand more about what OS X is doing -- but I don't.

Therein lies your problem - OS X is primarily a GUI-oriented operating system mainly aimed at "creatives" and home users. OK, Apple have traded a bit on the Unix foundation - and its certainly a better Unix system than Windows - but the main objective was clearly to hide Unix from Mac users. If you want to scare a typical Mac user, pop up the terminal (and if you really want to traumatise them, boot up to single user mode). Conversely, hardcore Unix users would typically rather use the shell and edit a .rc file than use a GUI. I suspect that one of the reasons that Unix/Linux GUIs are (still!) so clunky compared to Mac and Windows is that the programmers that design them only ever use them to run 8 simultaneous xterms.

If you want a Mac then - bonus!!! - it can also run a range of *nix/Linux/FOSS apps in something far closer to their natural environment than Windows. However, If your first requirement is a *nix workstation then get some cheap PC hardware (or even an Intel Mac) and stick Linux on it. The OS X GUI is far better than anything under Linux - but if you are a CLI person that doesn't really matter.

To be fair, if you've ever switched from a SysV-style Unix to a *BSD one - or even between a Debian-descended Linux distro and a RedHat-descended one - you'll have torn your hair out trying to find applications and config files. (Hint: in OSX the contents of /etc are largely bogus and the real beef is actually stored in the netinfo database - and if you google you can find the cli commands to manipulate that).

I have a 1.42 [Mini] with a GB of RAM and it still pinwheels constantly.

That sounds like a PPC (G4) Mac Mini. Think pre-Pentium-M Centrino. They are great little boxes provided you realise that they are more "iPod Maxi" than "Mac Mini". They are a perfect indication of why Apple had to switch to Intel Core processors.

Re:What I think they should change...

[foniksonik]

There's an application called Terminal... I know it sounds unhealthy to use but it is really useful... it lets you do things like this:

Ozark:~ jamesbb$ ps -aux
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND
jamesbb 3450 0.7 -0.9 369664 19516 ?? R 7:32AM 0:00.75 /Applications/Utilities/Terminal.app/Contents/MacO S/Terminal -psn_0_44171265

(shortened to get past junk limit on /.)

Which pretty much tells an experienced user what is going on behind the scenes.

There is a website http://developer.apple.com/ which lets you search on specific information about what programs are doing what on your system at any given time... and how to interoperate with them in useful ways... such as writing shell scripts, automator scripts, etc.

Another great tool from the Terminal is this

Ozark:~ jamesbb$ man perl

PERL(1) Perl Programmers Reference Guide PERL(1)

NAME
              perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language

SYNOPSIS

              If you're new to Perl, you should start with perlintro, which is a gen-
              eral intro for beginners and provides some background to help you navi-
              gate the rest of Perl's extensive documentation.

              For ease of access, the Perl manual has been split up into several sec-
              tions.

(shortened to get past junk limit on /.)

Which gives you access to manual pages for various binary applications that are on your system

You can find most of these 'hidden' binaries here:

Ozark:~ jamesbb$ ls -la /usr/bin/
total 253440
-r-xr-xr-x 15 root wheel 147 Jan 13 2006 alias
(shortened to get past junk limit on /.)

which AFAIK is the exact same place you'd find them in Linux

Additionally you can use alias to create shortcuts to your favorite CLI apps

grep, find and slocate are also good tools for finding things on your system that you think should be there but you're not sure where they are ;-p

If you don't want to use your experience using CLI then go to this website: http://www.versiontracker.com/ and type in your favorite CLI app name and you're 90% likely to find a free GUI tool for accessing it (people have been writing and releasing them free for many years now)

This post should get you started on the track to appreciating the UNIXness of your OS X machine....

Re:What I think they should change...

[bitflip]

It's nice to see that even n00b mac users are subject to the same RTFM mentality that users of other platforms are subjected to.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Enuratique]

That's a good suggestion, save for the fact he's too cheap to replace a CPU fan.

Re:What I think they should change...

[arloguthrie]

That's horrible what your Mac mini is doing. It must take you, like, 20 minutes to copy a 17MB file.

Re:What I think they should change...

[mrcdeckard]

so you continue to use this operating system that you hate because you're too cheap/lazy to fix a $15/15 minute cpu fan.

anyway, your point about not knowing what's going on behind the scenes --> and you know what's going on behind the scenes in windows? (i guess you're 1 in 3 people who understand the registry. . . .)

here are a few hints for you:

applications>>utilities>>terminal
developer.apple.com

mr c

Re:What I think they should change...

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I can make you an offer to solve both your problems (and I'm serious).

I'd buy that mini, you'd have money to replace your fans, we'd be both happy.

Come to my website, click on my nickname on top of any articles I wrote and mail me if you're interrested.

Re:What I think they should change...

[forkazoo]

* I hate the fact that I have no idea what the fuck is going on behind the scenes with the Mac. Yeah, XP has gotten to this point but I guess because I have a basic idea built up over the years from other versions of Windows, I don't mind as much. Being built on Unix, I would expect to understand more about what OS X is doing -- but I don't.

Most of your "reasons" why you dislike OS-X are similar to this one. It's something different therefore you hate it. That's not really constructive. You don't even say what you have trouble finding so people can help you. What "behind the scenes" do you want to know about? There is a ton of documentation available. Many people here on slashdot will be able to answer specific questions for you. What files are you trying to find? What apps are you trying to find? What support files?

You know, if you actually asked a specific question instead of just bitching about your own ignorance, you might have less to bitch about. :) OS-X is a pretty nifty OS.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nononono... it's not bad. It's not bad at all. It's just inferior. That's all.

Re:What I think they should change...

[soft_guy]

New things sometimes take some getting used to. Those of us who have been using the Mac for 20 years find OS X to be pretty familiar and comfotable, although there are certainly things they changed from the old MacOS where I disagree with their choices. (For example, I liked the old Finder better.)

Every time I use Windows or Linux, its less comfortable for me because I'm not used to it. Plus, there are lots of details that Apple hides that are exposed in Windows and it feels "sloppy" to me - like if I bought a house and there was no dry wall up and they said "If you had drywall - you couldn't see the wiring". The fact is, I don't want to see the wiring.

Let me give an example to illustrate things that I find to be weird in Windows. In Windows XP, right click your desktop and choose Properties. Then choose settings and click "Advanced". On my computer, there is a tab in this panel that has stuff related to the video card. On that tab, there are controls for adjusting the OpenGL settings. Currently, I'm developing on application for both Windows and Mac that uses some OpenGL graphics. I am not a graphics scientist, nor do I really want to be one. I just want my app to work. So I've found that sometimes the open gl accelerations in my app don't work on Windows. When this happens, I usually need to adjust the open gl settings for the particular machine/video card confirguration. Usually this involves really cryptic stuff like "Flipping Mode" and there isn't any explanation in the dialog as to what "Flipping Mode" actually is or does. But you can set it to "Auto Select" or "Block Transfer". Do not reply to this post with an explanation of Flipping Mode because that isn't the point. The point is, why in the world do they even have this setting exposed? No user is going to care what flipping mode is. The modes the user cares about are "working" vs. "not working". And they never want to be in the "not working" mode. Between Dell, NVidia, and Microsoft, someone should have figured out what the right flipping mode is and it should set to that automatically, not have the responsibility for this shoved off on the end user.

And yes, you can buy replacement video cards for a Macintosh pro desktop system. You can plug them in yourself. And you still won't be seeing a dialog to set Flipping Mode.

I'm sure I'll get lots of comments telling me I'm an idiot because "hey, more choices are better". Well, in my opinion, more choices are not always better when it comes to esoteric choices about Flipping Mode. I just want my video card to work. Even as a developer, I want to be able to just stick to writing OpenGL code and not have to worry about whether the customer's video card is going to be configured correctly. And on MacOS X, I can sleep at night knowing that we aren't going to get those tech support calls in the first place because Apple worked with the video card vendor and made sure that graphics hardware is always going to be configured properly.

That said, usually on most Windows systems, the default settings for the video card will be the right ones. But just having the dialog box there seems weird to me - which may be because I'm a Mac guy.

Which is to say that you get used to something and other systems are not going to be as comfortable to you.

Re:What I think they should change...

[norminator]

That's because he's asking about non-"n00b" questions... With Linux, you're expected to have to ask around on forums a read lots of man pages to learn how to do the kinds of tasks that Linux people do. He wants to know how to do the same types of things in OS X, but he's expecting those things to come as easily as the normal every day user tasks in OS X. Just because it's made by Apple doesn't mean messing with the "under-the-hood" things is easier than it is with Linux. You still have to do some work and research to understand the internals.

Re:What I think they should change...

[tsa]

But why should you waste your time on a system you don't like? Come on, despite what all the Apple fanboys say it's just an OS. If you don't like it, go elsewhere and don't waste your time getting frustrated. There are better things to do in life!

Re:What I think they should change...

[dmsuperman]

Yes but the whole point of a product is for it to work how you want it, not the other way around. Why pay for something that doesn't work how you want to, when you could stick with something that does.

Re:What I think they should change...

[tsa]

Spotlight doesn't locate sytem files like /etc/passwd and is therefore useless for a Unix fan. Or is there some configuration thing I don't know about?

Re:What I think they should change...

[jbssm]

Hum, I see:

You installed Linux and it automagically recognised all you USB peripherals, it installed nice drivers for your printer (no, I'm not talking about those crapy GIMP drivers) and it also configured 3D acceleration to your graphic card.
You didn't had to configure fstab to mount your windows or other external partitions, nor to configure your bluethoot device, and you TV card worked right out of the box ... yeah, right.

And your windows box (yes because you talk about both), is working stable since 5 years ago, no BSOD no garbage from older installed programs (oh, perhaps you only use wordpad and the things that case with windows default installations, that is why), you also installed SP1 and SP" without any problem (in fact you didn't had to make a reboot) and windows never gave you a crash, also, your windows computer like all the other in the universe, some months after installation, after some uptime doesn't start trashing and trashing to the hard drive to the point you need to make a reboot and think about re-installing it (ahh, no perhaps you are one of those that has 32TB of RAM in is computer so you don't notice it).

It's indeed a funny thing ... in fact, thinking again, it's not funny, it's just not true.

Re:What I think they should change...

[HTH NE1]

For finding stuff, applications in particular, try installing Quicksilver.

Funny, but when I'm looking for applications, I tend to just check in the Applications folder and start typing its name.

I guess I must be the odd one for installing Applications in the Applications folder.

I also look for utilities in the Utilities folder.

It's the filing of documents though where things start to break down for me. Stuff just tends to accumulate on the Desktop, much like my office, as the detritus of multiple tasks being worked on at once and then being forgotten, random-periodically all shoved into a folder with a date for its name.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Keith Russell]

If you're looking for a cheaper alternative, get an external Firewire enclosure and throw any 3.5" 7200 RPM hard drive you like in it. That did wonders for my G4 mini's speed, I was able to reuse an old drive from my PC, and it's easier than trying to pry a mini open with a putty knife.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you want from OS that can not even show you the damn date... ;)
Stop whining and use Linux/KDE. ;)

If you sleep better, after you have paid top $$$ for OS, burn the damn money in your kitchen sink and then move to Linux/KDE.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Doctor O]

I have switched from PCs with Windows and Linux to a Powerbook two years ago. I can't tell you why "everyone" is "excited", but I can tell you why *my* next home machine will be a Mac:

* I can ssh into my Linux and FreeBSD boxen and use Apple's X11 to seamlessly work with those (in OSX 10.3 use ssh -CX, in 10.4 better use ssh -CY).
* Via VirtualPC (or Parallels for those with Intel Macs), I can use the very few Windows apps I need and test my stuff in IE.
* Considering the former two points, I can use Linux apps, Windows apps and Macintosh apps all at the same time on the same screen, with good performance, and without ever having to reboot to change environments.
* You have a complete set of your *nix toolset, so that you can scp, grep, tail, sed, rsync, whois... all you want.

As for your complaint that the config files aren't 'where they belong', I think this is intentional so that you don't go and edit lots of stuff and expect the machine to do the same as your Linux box would. It IS a different animal after all, and as long as cron works as well as it does (for my backup), I'll gladly leave the server stuff to my real BSD boxen (read: I haven't found anything I want to do with the Powerbook I'd need to edit config files for).

OSX is far from perfect, but gives me a good mix of having the most things I need available while letting me conveniently access everything else. So when you're like me and use your fair share of Mac apps, you get the best of all three worlds.

Re:What I think they should change...

[geoffspear]

Do you complain when your car is really bad at cooking an egg, and argue with people that tell you you should have bought a stove instead?

There's absolutely no compelling reason why OS X should work the way a user wants it to, if what the user wants is Linux or Windows. I don't complain that when I hit CTRL-C on a Windows box, it copies something instead of sending a SIGINT signal.

Re:What I think they should change...

[MagnusDredd]

Actually WRT the CLI comment and OSX not being Linux. You're mostly off the mark there.

My biggest complaints about the OSX command line vs. that of Linux is the lack of "rename" and "watch". Interestingly, these commands are also missing on some of the other *nix platforms I've used.

I love bash, sed, and awk. While at some point I should get off of my butt and learn some perl, I'm content with what I use now. It works, and with the exception of bash they're installed by default on most any crusty old or new version of *nix I tinker with. Scripting and CLI stuff on OSX with minor exceptions, is basically the same as most any other *nix.

At the school I work at, I've recently:
I've written some scripts to monitor computer labs usage with vncsnapshot and export a web-based gallery.
I've written a script that will mount the C: drives of the XP based lab machines and find student work saved to the "My docs" folder regardless of which machine the student was using.
I've written a script that will move the old profiles (those not used for two weeks or more) to a temp directory. (Lots of profile directories in Docs and Settings slow the machines to a crawl)
More...

These scripts will work the same on OSX, Linux, or FreeBSD.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

What you don't seem to understand is that you've insulted just about every Apple user out there that says they believe MacOS is the best. When someone says this:

"Come on, despite what all the Apple fanboys say it's just an OS. If you don't like it, go elsewhere and don't waste your time getting frustrated. There are better things to do in life!"

with s/Apple/Linux/g you'll be flamed and called a whiney Windows/Mac fanboy. I just don't understand the mentality that it's ok for linux to be complex and irritating and if you leave, you're a loser...but don't waste your time when it comes to MacOS or Windows...

Re:What I think they should change...

[Abcd1234]

Yes but the whole point of a product is for it to work how you want it, not the other way around.

Yeah, no kidding! For example, I'm really experienced with using hammers, but today, I decided to go out and buy a screwdriver. And you know what? The damn thing can't even pound a nail! It expects me to use these "screw" things I've never seen before, and you have to put them in by *twisting*! I don't want to twist, I wanna pound!

Re:What I think they should change...

[spasm]

spotlight is amazing for finding files in your home directory but close to useless for finding system files (one of the OP's main complaints). as a simple example, try finding where apple has put the 'whoami' bin using spotlight. on my machine, spotlight finds 41 files (mostly random .h files) but not the executable itself. locate happily spits out:

172:~ pete$ locate whoami /usr/bin/ldapwhoami /usr/bin/whoami /usr/sbin/bpwhoami /usr/share/man/man1/bpwhoami.1 /usr/share/man/man1/ldapwhoami.1 /usr/share/man/man1/whoami.1
172:~ pete$

I love spotlight, but I'd love it even more if I knew how to tell it to index the whole machine..

Re:What I think they should change...

[Phred T. Magnificent]

If you don't like OS X, why not install Linux on that machine? Then at least your configuration files will be where you expect them.

Wait, you expect configuration files to be in a consistent location on Linux!!??!! We laugh in your general direction. Certainly you have never tried more than one distribution.

If you're really looking for consistency and predictability in a filesystem hierarchy, use BSD.

Re:What I think they should change...

[antv]

* I hate the fact that I can never find *anything* I'm looking for. I spend entirely too long searching around for applications, their support files, and system configuration options. I realize that Apple designs these things for people who aren't familiar with computers, but fuck, it makes it hard for someone that is quite comfy with Linux and Windows configurations.

Hmm, "depends on your definition of find"(tm). mdfind is a spotlight interface from command line. locate and find work pretty much exactly as in every other unix system. Preferences are usually in ~/Library/Preferences. App resources are either in APPNAME.app/Contents/Resources or in ~/Library/Application Support. If you're not sure what files app uses, you could either do lsof while it's running (just like Linux); or you could run ktrace appname anth then do kdump -f ktrace.out - that's Mac analog of strace. There's a defaults command, that is pretty much like a command line interface to all settings. Man pages are usualy there for every command.

* I hate the fact that I have no idea what the fuck is going on behind the scenes with the Mac. Yeah, XP has gotten to this point but I guess because I have a basic idea built up over the years from other versions of Windows, I don't mind as much. Being built on Unix, I would expect to understand more about what OS X is doing -- but I don't.

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/in dex.html is a pretty good place to get started. They describe every part of Darwin (OS X kernel) and OS X specific userspace tools (like launchd versus inetd, etc)

* I really don't like the fact that I *could* do stuff on the CLI but I can never find out how. The files aren't in the locations I would expect.

Well, Unix - related files are usually in /etc and /usr/, just like you would expect. To interface with Cocoa/Carbon apps, I suggest you use Applescript. osascript is a command-line Applescript utility, so you could do things like osascript -e 'tell application "iTunes" to pause' from command-line. Again, read up Apple darwin docs.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Maserati]

I'll knock Apple for one thing about the ~/Library folder, I hate having user data in ~/Library/Application\ Support. AddressBook and iCal both put their data there. Every other application I've seen, notably including Apple's, does not. Stickies[1] is worse though, the StickiesDatabase is loose in the ~/Library folder.

[1] Stickies is possibly the most useful application Apple has ever released.

Re:What I think they should change...

[jeremyp]

locate wouldn't help much with /etc/passwd either bearing in mind that /etc/passwd tells you exactly where it is. By the way, /etc/passwd is only used in single user mode on the Mac.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.internetisshit.org/

Your website is a perfect example of that which it criticizes.

Re:What I think they should change...

[SoonerPet]

I understand you being new to OS X, but these things really aren't hard if you just stuck with it for a bit.

* Applications are in the Applications folder, very easy to find in the root of the drive. Anything else you want to find hit Command + Space and start typing, Spotlight is your friend.

* Want to know what's going on in the background? In the Utilities folder open up Activity Monitor, it shows everything running just like the task monitor in windows. If you don't like that, open up the terminal and run top like any other nix based OS.

* As far as other CLI stuff, there are tons of resources online for the mac, there are even some pretty good man pages you can check out too within the terminal itself.

As far as your mini showing too many beach balls, you do have to realize that the G4 you have is two generations in processors behind current macs sold. I fully accept my old G4 Powerbook and to some degree my G5 Powermac to run stuff slower and not be as responsive as a newer intel mac.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

~$ which whoami
/usr/bin/whoami

But certainly, Spotlight's hardcoded avoidance of system directories and the developer documentation (!) is a pain.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Listen Up]

Linux is an OS as well. Albeit, the most difficult to use with the largest learning curve of almost any OS. You are just as much of a fanboy of bashing OS X as you claim other people are about liking OS X. So what you are is a complete hypocrite. And what you are saying is complete bullshit.

Re:What I think they should change...

[dloose]

Are you serious? I think OS X has much more visual feedback than Windows. If a Windows application doesn't have a splash screen, your only visual cue that it's launching it the hourglass, and that disappears the second you switch to another application. In OS X you get the bouncing Dock icon to let you know something's going on. If the icon stops bouncing, there's a black triangle under it, and you haven't seen a window yet, it's time to poke around in the menu. I'll grant you that that's not the most intuitive behavior, but the only application I've seen that does this is XCode. Do you use XCode?

Re:What I think they should change...

[LihTox]

I hate the fact that I can never find *anything* I'm looking for.

I'm a Mac/UNIX person, and when I have to use a Windows machine I have the same problem: no idea where things are. I make sure to save files to the Desktop because otherwise I won't be able to find them. Maybe I haven't tried to learn Windows as hard as you've tried to learn OSX, but familiarity is certainly a factor.

Re:What I think they should change...

[prichardson]

If you're pin-wheeling a lot, I recommend opening up Activity Monitor (in /Applications/Utilities), a GUI front-end for top and see what's running. If you prefer just running top, fire up the terminal and do so. If it's the same process that's causing you to hang (applications that aren't responding are listed in red), then do some investigating about that process. As much as I hate to say it, you might have just gotten a wonky install, and backing up and reinstalling might work some of this out. There's an "archive and install" option on the install disk that does that pretty well for you.

I'm a big fan of MenuMeters ( http://www.ragingmenace.com/software/menumeters/ ) for showing different loads on my system.

Also, Apple's website has a huge knowledge base about all the internals of the system. There's a good amount on specific differences between what they do and general linux principals.

Re:What I think they should change...

[QuoteMstr]

BSD has its quirks too. I think what the OP meant was that the configuration file locations weren't _familiar_. If he's used to Linux, then BSD will be just as alien.

Re:What I think they should change...

[0racle]

Actually there is http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20050 50222125145

I haven't tried it since I know where /etc/password is and knew how to configure locate, which is apparently difficult for the OP even though it tells you how to when you first run it.

Re:What I think they should change...

[captainjaroslav]

"Unices" Hee hee.

Re:What I think they should change...

[0100010001010011]

Bingo!
I have 3 folders in my doc.
Applications
Utilities
Projects (full of TextMate Project files for websites)

Before QuickSilver everything was one right click away.

With QuickSilver I may remove Applications and Utilities.

Re:What I think they should change...

[quicks0rt]

You're over assuming. He only said he had to do neither of those, and suddenly 6 months became 5 years... It is quite possible that he may be running an old machine, where Linux has a great amount of support. A more recent distribution like Ubuntu makes it painless to install drivers, but you're right about finding drivers for newer stuff (although generic ones sometimes suffice).

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been a Mac developer for the past 7 years, and your comments represent all that is wrong with Apple.

It IS difficult to finds things on OS X, especially if you come from an OS 9, or earlier, background. If you're a developer, it gets worse, especially if you have to work with files/folders that finder will not display.

System configuration options are not all accessbile via system preferences. That's a full on fib. Digging around the apple dev boards (or the 'open source' Darwin boards), which you suggest the poster do, will reveal a plethora of command-line and config-file only options and settings.

There is not requirement for an application to go in the Applications folder. In some cases, it's not even possible, as the OS requires that certain components be located in specific areas (tray applications, for example).

You argument about the poster not educating himself is a poor argument at best. The Mac is supposed to be brain-dead simple. At least thats how it gets marketed...

Apples Developer support (DTS) is GARBAGE. I spent an entire YEAR working on an issue with them (which I will not mention for fear of being identified) only for them to finally concede and admit that all of their documentation and literature was in fact total BS (my words, not theirs). They would even give me bogus advice ON THE PHONE.

Apple has gone down hill in the OS department. I dont think they even use their own dev tools anymore.

Re:What I think they should change...

[paanta]

Um, last time I installed FreeBSD (two days ago), locatedb wasn't populated either. So that's another example of what a half-assed job FreeBSD does of utilizing the underlying toolkit.

Re:What I think they should change...

[tetsuo29]

If you have 1GB of RAM and you're constantly getting the spinning rainbow of death (I'm guessing that's what you meant by "pinwheels"), then you need to do 1 of 2 things:

    - get more RAM (a faster hard drive wouldn't hurt either)

    - close some apps

Ever notice how some of the icons in the dock have little black triangles under them and some don't? The ones with little black triangles under them are still active in memory and depending on how well/poorly they are coded, can sometimes be eating up significant amounts of RAM & CPU cycles- even if you've shut all of their associated windows.

My wife was always complaining about how slow her iBook G4 800Mhz w/ 640MB of RAM was running. And, every time she complained about it, I always noticed how she had like 12 - 15 programs running. Once she started shutting down some of the apps, the performance of her iBook went way up.

You've got to work within the limits of the machine/OS. It doesn't matter if it is OS X or any other OS. I've got an Ubuntu box that only has 256MB of RAM. It runs great for things like Firefox, the terminal, and OpenOffice, but if I launch VMWare Player and then fire up a Windows 2000 virtual machine that is allocated 128MB of RAM, the whole damn thing slows to a crawl. Guess what? I know it's not Ubuntu's fault, but mine for not having enough RAM in that box for what I'm asking it to do at the time. I'm typing this from a Windows XP machine that has 512MB of RAM. I can get this thing crawling after a few hours just by opening Firefox (with a bunch of tabs), Adobe Reader (with several big PDFs), & several documents in OpenOffice.

One last thing, learn to use the "Activity Monitor". It's in [Name of your hard drive]/Applications/Utilities on your mini. It will start to help you get some sense of what's going on behind the scenes with OS X and will also give you some clues as to why your machine gives you the spinning pinwheel of death so frequently.

Oh, I lied, this is really the last thing. If you use Firefox on the Mac, quit it once in awhile and relaunch it. It's gotten better in v2.0, but it still seems to be a total resource pig in OS X and it seems to progressively leak memory the longer it is open. Safari is the best day to day browser on OS X and Firefox is a nice backup for sites that aren't 100% compatible with Safari yet.

Re:What I think they should change...

[macshome]

Locate works just fine on Mac OS X. The DB gets built/updated by launchd running the periodic weekly scripts at 3:15 am on Friday night.

See /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.periodic-w eekly.plist and /etc/periodic/weekly/500.weekly.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Guy Harris]

Oh, and in response to the GGP, you've obviously never used an flavor of UNIX other than Linux. Linux is NOT UNIX despite what some might want to tell you. It's inspired by UNIX but doesn't follow many of the forms that became common in true UNIX platforms. OSX is closer to BSD than Linux is, and as such I'm quite comfy in that environment having cut my teeth on NetBSD, FreeBSD and AT&T UNIX (yes, the real deal). Just because nothing is where you expect it coming from a hobbyist UNIX platform, doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. In fact, OSX has more in common with most commercial UNIX's (Unices?) than Linux will ever have.

Yup. For example, OS X doesn't have those weird "run levels" in init that Linux has; it's more like AT&T UNIX in that regard.

Oh, wait, never mind.... :-)

(Yes, the original AT&T UNIX didn't have them, either, but most Linux distributions are closer to SV than the BSDs - including, in this case, OS X - are in that regard.)

On the other hand, ifconfig in OS X looks like the original BSD version; Linux is the one that stands out there.

So I suspect you'll find that

1. OS X is closer to *BSD than Linux in many regards;
2. it's closer to Linux in some regards (some commands are GNU commands when the *BSDs use BSD equivalents, e.g. OS X offers bash and not the Almquist shell, and the OS X make is GNU Make rather than Berkeley make);
3. it's sui generis in other places (e.g., launchd in Tiger, although launchd is closer to the BSD init than to the SV init or the Linux clone thereof).

Re:What I think they should change...

[noewun]

I hate the fact that I can never find *anything* I'm looking for. I spend entirely too long searching around for applications, their support files, and system configuration options. I realize that Apple designs these things for people who aren't familiar with computers, but fuck, it makes it hard for someone that is quite comfy with Linux and Windows configurations.

Two responses to this. The first is that I have had the same experience with Linux. I installed it on my old Powerbook for the first time and couldn't figure out a single thing. However, over the past few months I have figured out where things live, which files to edit (the constantly changing xorg.conf, for instance) and how to move around the OS. It has taken some work from my end, but I am finally comfortable in Linux. As for searching for applications in OS X, they're in /Applications, and there's a link included in every Finder window.

* I hate the fact that I have no idea what the fuck is going on behind the scenes with the Mac. Yeah, XP has gotten to this point but I guess because I have a basic idea built up over the years from other versions of Windows, I don't mind as much. Being built on Unix, I would expect to understand more about what OS X is doing -- but I don't.

top works in OS X just like in any other BSD system, and very similar to Unix systems. If you mean a more in-depth answer than that, there are any number of books and forums which can answer your questions about what's going on inside the machine.

* I really don't like the fact that I *could* do stuff on the CLI but I can never find out how. The files aren't in the locations I would expect.

See above.

It sounds to me as if you want to know how OS X works without having to be curious about the system or find out about it on your own. Like I said, I have had to spend some time googling and poking around Linux forums to become comfortable in that system, and I don't consider that to be an undue burden. If, by your own admission you're not familiar with OS X, why not get curious if you want to be interested?

Re:What I think they should change...

[not-enough-info]

* I hate the fact that I can never find *anything* I'm looking for. I spend entirely too long searching around for applications, their support files, and system configuration options. I realize that Apple designs these things for people who aren't familiar with computers, but fuck, it makes it hard for someone that is quite comfy with Linux and Windows configurations. Applications are under /Applications. All the support files are inside the Application package; if you want to uninstall, just trash the App icon.
App prefs are in your home folder.
System configs are in System Preferences.
Stop me if I'm moving too fast for you...

 
* I hate the fact that I have no idea what the fuck is going on behind the scenes with the Mac. Yeah, XP has gotten to this point but I guess because I have a basic idea built up over the years from other versions of Windows, I don't mind as much. Being built on Unix, I would expect to understand more about what OS X is doing -- but I don't. /Applications/Utilities/Activity Monitor (hmn... that's right about where I'd expect it to be...)
Since you seem to be fine with *nix, why not /Applications/Utilities/Terminal (type top)
Surely both of these options are a helluva lot more descriptive than Windows Task Manager.

 
* I really don't like the fact that I *could* do stuff on the CLI but I can never find out how. The files aren't in the locations I would expect. System stuff is under... wait for it... /System
User stuff is under /Users/youraccountname
Oh and FYI, all those *nix commands that you supposedly are familiar with... yeah they work exactly like they're supposed to.

Further, I think you'll find a lot fewer violations of these practices on MacOSX than say WinXP. Surely, I can find the user, system, and program directories under WinXP, but damned if I can find where that adware stuck itself.

(like putting the minimize and close options on the "correct" side of the window ;)) Okay, you got me there. Damn whey didn't they just stick with close on the left, shade/zoom on the right??? That's it, I'm throwing my MacBookPro in the bog!

Re:What I think they should change...

[ciggieposeur]

You installed Linux and it automagically recognised all you USB peripherals,

Yes.

it installed nice drivers for your printer (no, I'm not talking about those crapy GIMP drivers)

The printer was a network printer, so I had to tell CUPS what IP it was on and what make it was. After that, yes it worked well.

and it also configured 3D acceleration to your graphic card.

I had to download the nVidia driver myself, exit X, and run the installer. After that it worked well.

You didn't had to configure fstab to mount your windows or other external partitions,

The Debian installer found all the other partitions and asked which ones to put in fstab.

nor to configure your bluethoot device, and you TV card worked right out of the box ... yeah, right.

Don't have those, so I don't know.

Also:

* My sound card and modem were autodetected at boot time and setup correctly.

* DVDs play right out of the box with Kaffeine. (No need to install a DVD codec like Windows.)

* K3b located my CD and DVD burners automatically.

None of these required messing with stuff in /etc .

Re:What I think they should change...

[tsa]

What you don't seem to understand is that you've insulted just about every Apple user out there that says they believe MacOS is the best. When someone says this:
 
"Come on, despite what all the Apple fanboys say it's just an OS. If you don't like it, go elsewhere and don't waste your time getting frustrated. There are better things to do in life!"
 
with s/Apple/Linux/g you'll be flamed and called a whiney Windows/Mac fanboy. I just don't understand the mentality that it's ok for linux to be complex and irritating and if you leave, you're a loser...but don't waste your time when it comes to MacOS or Windows...
 
  People may say that they believe Mac OSX or whatever OS is 'the best', but still it's only an OS. Nothing to waste your time on if you don't like it. And I didn't say anything about Linux or Windows, so don't put words in my mouth please. I just said that I think it's a waste of time trying to like an OS that apparently does not suit your taste.

Re:What I think they should change...

[TheRaven64]

Pretty much every application puts things there. On my machine:

$ cd ~/Library/Application\ Support
$ ls | wc -l
54

Re:What I think they should change...

[godawful]

I don't mean to sound like a condescending douche, so I hope I don't if you've tried all this stuff:

A good way to understand the system layout in OS X is look through it in Column View, starting at "Macintosh HD", or whatever you've named your hard drive.. This should dump you at the root level of the drive, where you'll see Applications, Library, System, Users (and some other stuff maybe). Applications are where all appplications available to any users are, Library is where the global setting for all users are, System is where the system keeps its stuff, and Users are where the user only directories are. inside of Users you'll find your home folder. Inside of there is another applications folder (i never put anything in there, a folder called desktop (contents of this are what you actually see on your desktop). Documents, Library etc. etc.

I think column view is really useful when people are trying to understand the layout of the system.

As for what's going on behind the scenes, welll, that depends on just how specific you really want to know. Of course you could run top from the terminal, but that might not be what you really mean. For more technical stuff you really just have to read up on how OS X works, a book will do that.

CLI stuff I understand is always a pain for people coming from a different background. I don't think there is really any helpful way of getting around that other than reading up on the OS X way of things, and i know that totally sucks. In my experience, I came from OS 9, so my mind was a completely blank slate to the CLI when I first got on OS X.

Your mini pinwheeling. Yeh, you friend is right, something is wrong, might just need a clean install, but on the other hand. I used to have that mini too (with only 512), if youre hitting virtual memory at all, then you're going to pinwheel, the drives in those are so slow, 4800 as i recall. I ended up getting a new Core Duo, and boy does it make a world of difference. I know replacing yours isn't probably ideal, but i think i ended up selling mine for 350 which made a new core duo far more afforadble.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Fahrenheit 450]

The Mac is supposed to be brain-dead simple. At least thats how it gets marketed...

No. It's marketed as brain-dead simple for simple things (read: things your ordinary average user will be doing), but with a core that can be much more complex if you really want to be noodling about. The basic user won't really give a damn about what's in the /usr or /etc directories. They won't care about manually setting hidden preferences. They won't be looking for the Developer apps like Shark. They won't be wondering where to put this spiffy new preference pane that they downloaded and so on.

If you plan on developing for the machine, then yeah... you're going to have to do some work on your own to learn about the rest of the system... boo farking hoo. That's been the same for every OS since Basic ROMs went the way of the dinosaurs.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

if you're having the spinning beach ball of death a lot in safari, i'd suggest using firefox instead. . . it's sort of a known problem with safari and one whose various fixes work with varying degrees of success, the best "fix" being switching to firefox. . .

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

what i'd suggest (since he said he mainly uses the machine for web browsing) is, if he's using safari, to switch to firefox. . . safari, for some reason, beachballs a lot, firefox, less so. . . a *lot* less so. . . i've seen suggestions as to how to keep safari from beachballing so much and for so long on various discussion boards, and while some work better than others, the easiest and most effective suggestion seems to be switching to firefox. . .

Re:What I think they should change...

[GaryPatterson]

"The Mac is supposed to be brain-dead simple. At least thats how it gets marketed."

And it's how it is.

Maybe it sucks for you as a developer, but for users, OS X is really simple and the apps are almost trivial to use.

The other day I took a few downloaded video files and created a DVD with a nice animated menu and two full movies. I'd never used iDVD before, but in ten minutes I'd got everything ready to burn.

That is as brain-dead simple as computing gets.

Apple market the *uses* of the Mac as simple. I've never seen them market the development for OS X as simple. Having said that, the technical docs I've read are generally pretty good, but my focus is on OpenGL and game-based development. I've found it pretty straightforward to get developing.

Re:What I think they should change...

[shmlco]

So? All user data, including preferences, is in your Home (~) folder. Backup your home folder and you've backed up pretty much everything that's yours...

Re:What I think they should change...

[shmlco]

Go to the Finder and do a Command-Shift-G. Type /etc and hit return.

For this to be really effective, however, you need to enable the root account and do all of your /etc-type stuff there, as those files are read-only to "normal" users.

Re:What I think they should change...

[MustardMan]

Redundant? never mind the fact that there was only one other reply to this thread when I posted my response - yet somehow I'm the redundant one. Slashdot mods, suck my balls.

Re:What I think they should change...

[dircha]

Perhaps if OS X users spent more time helping and welcoming new users instead of bashing them and the platforms they are coming from as you are, OS X wouldn't have - at best - only marginally more market share than GNU/Linux variants.

I use OS X at home almost exclusively because as I've become older, I've realized that life is too short and free time too valuable to spend fiddling with computer drivers and configuration files and *especially* media codecs and plugins. It looks nice, the hardware looks nice, it is high quality from hardware to software, and it has a great service contract. I use the web browser, the email app, and itunes. That's about it. I've never been happier with an OS for personal use. I reboot into Windows (Boot Camp) every now and then to play a PC game or two that have no OS X versions. It all looks beautiful on a cinema display, and the ipod integration is nearly flawless.

Whereas at work I run Debian GNU/Linux, and wouldn't have it any other way.

If what you want is a Unix/XWindows development workstation, a GNU/Linux distribution gets you much closer, in a much more streamlined way, than OS X. Systems such as "fink" for OS X are a disaster compared to the ease of use of any modern, mainstream GNU/Linux system. If there were an officially supported package managed repository providing the applications you expect in a modern UNIX or UNIX-like environment, I might even consider using OS X for development. But as it stands, for providing that, Debian GNU/Linux (and all the other biggies) are far and away superior. OS X feels more like a toy than a serious technical development workstation, and I think the same can be said of its use as a server.

Unlike a vocal minority of OS X users, I don't think for an instant that I am somehow hip or cool or more intelligent for using a Mac. Those people are asshats, no matter what platform they use. It's unfortunate that the Apple marketing hype seems intentionally designed to feed their egos. The company can go to hell for all I care. I just find the product meets my simple needs very elegantly, and that's good enough for me.

Re:What I think they should change...

[pebs]

I also have the same Mac Mini he has (G4 1.42GHz). It's just an incredibly slow machine. My case is even worse with only 512MB RAM. And then there is the 4200 RPM hard drive. I'm considering upgrading the RAM and getting a faster Firewire drive to use as my system drive, though maybe that won't be enough to make a difference?

Looking at Activity Monitor, most apps are using some serious virtual memory (90+ MB in most cases). Actually "Real Memory" isn't heavily used. If there is a lot of swapping going on, then its definitely the 4200 RPM drive that's hurting performance.

Re:What I think they should change...

[dmsuperman]

So what you're saying is I should go out and spend my hard earned money on something that doesn't even work how I want it to?

I suggest rather than buying a screwdriver, you buy another hammer or just don't buy anything at all. If you have something that works like you want it to, there's no reason to buy another product that doesn't work how you want it to. The whole point of a product is to appeal to consumers, Mac OS is no different, it should appeal to the consumer, not do something and tell them to screw themselves if they don't like how it works.

Re:What I think they should change...

[prichardson]

You're probably right, I have a 1.5ghz Powerbook with 1gB of RAM, pretty much the same as your mac mini, except for the 5400rpm hard drive. Apple fucked up with those substandard drives, so a good firewire drive (7200rpm) and another stick of RAM probably would speed up the system quite a bit.

I feel like Apple's pro machines are getting a lot better (even the new iMacs are really well-built), but their new low end is slipping. The Macbooks and Mac-minis don't even have real video cards anymore.

Re:What I think they should change...

[abhi_beckert]

* I hate the fact that I can never find *anything* I'm looking for. I spend entirely too long searching around for applications, their support files, and system configuration options. I realize that Apple designs these things for people who aren't familiar with computers, but fuck, it makes it hard for someone that is quite comfy with Linux and Windows configurations. Apart from the UNIX stuff, of which I only know the basics, everything is very well organized into the "Library" folders: /System/Library - owned by root, you can't modify this without changing permissions or using sudo, and you never ever need to modify it! The *only* tool that should ever touch this directory is Software Update, nothing else. /Library - owned by admin, any admin user can modify this. Anything installed here will generally apply to all users on the machine. ~/Library - owned by the user, anything installed here will only be apply to that user (eg: emails, bookmarks, etc). /Network/Library - I've never used it... from memory anything installed here is supposed to be available to all machines on the LAN or something. I'm not sure how it works. The contents of these folders should be fairly obvious, and all of the them can contain the same subdirectories, and if the same files exist in more than one library the "higher up ones" will normally override everything else (~/Library overrides /Library, /Library overrides /System/Library). If you rely on this behavior, test it extensively, because I don't think it applies to everything. There are a few exceptions: some applications will also look inside the Application bundle itself (mostly done with frameworks or plug-ins), right click on an application and choose "show package contents" to poke around here. Also, some really badly written software will store your settings in ~/Documents, which was deprecated almost 10 years ago (!!), but a few big corporations (such as microsoft) still do it.

* I hate the fact that I have no idea what the fuck is going on behind the scenes with the Mac. Yeah, XP has gotten to this point but I guess because I have a basic idea built up over the years from other versions of Windows, I don't mind as much. Being built on Unix, I would expect to understand more about what OS X is doing -- but I don't. There's no such thing as understanding any OS unless you've been using it for a long time. Live with it.

* I really don't like the fact that I *could* do stuff on the CLI but I can never find out how. The files aren't in the locations I would expect. Have you ever heard of google?

As I said, I use it as my desktop (which is basically web browsing) but that's because I don't have a choice. I have a friend that is amazed as how often mine "pinwheels". I have a 1.42 with a GB of RAM and it still pinwheels constantly. "That's just not right," he says. I agree. Your friend is right, I'm tying this on an 800Mhz G4 with 640MB of ram running MacOS X 10.4, and it never pinwheels. Do a re-install.

Re:What I think they should change...

[Thumper_SVX]

I re-read my post three times, and still fail to see where I was bashing OS's other than OSX. Yeah, I know some people are particularly sensitive about their choice of OS, but where on Earth did you get an idea that I was bashing anything? I was merely commenting on the GP and responding to their comments.

FYI, I use Linux as a server at home because it does what I need it to. I use OSX on my laptop because in that environment it does what I need it to. I run Windows on my laptop occasionally to play games when I feel like it, because it's good at that. My wife's laptop runs Windows because it does what she needs it to. My kids laptop runs Windows because it does what they need it to.

At work I use Windows because there it does what we need it to as a company. We also run Linux, Solaris and AS/400 where it makes sense or where the applications require it. I have my hands in all of these platforms every day, and you know what? I like it.

I am not as you seem to believe an OSX fanboy, in fact I'm as platform agnostic as you could probably ever find. I use what best fits my needs in a particular area. My laptop runs OSX because in my opinion it's the best consumer-grade totally integrated UNIX workstation laptop on the market today bar none. And no, a Linux laptop doesn't count. And no, that's not a bash on Linux either, it's simply that no-one provides a platform to the consumer today that is totally integrated except Apple. Linux is a third-party OS compiled for the hardware, or more likely a single distribution compiled for multiple hardware platforms (lowest common denominator) installed on that system. OSX is integrated with the hardware, it's designed for the hardware and if I need support on the platform I have one phone number to call. Last time I had a problem with Windows on a laptop I had both Dell and Microsoft pointing fingers at each other... don't even get me started on Linux laptops. Having said that, upstairs I also have a laptop that has Gentoo installed because that's as close to an integrated system as I got before I bought my Mac, and it worked fantastically well for a long time but supporting it as a platform was a lot of work. Maybe it's just because I'm getting older, or maybe it's because my real life takes up so much of my time but I want a platform that functions out of the box and provides me a single, predictable source for support. No, Google does not count.

And FYI, people who want a UNIX workstation are not necessarily developers. I like a UNIX workstation because it gives me flexibility I need when doing the jobs I need to do with a workstation. I work in systems support, and have to support multiple operating systems and application platforms... UNIX provides me the tools I need to do so easily. OSX provides me all those tools... out of the box no less. Windows doesn't. Linux does... but see my earlier comment about the platform. And my comment about Fink... yeah, granted it's not perfect... but if what you want is an easy way to install and uninstall the GNU tools that you want to use that aren't already installed, Fink is a great way to do it without having to go hunting for dependencies.

I use Fink to manage my X11 apps primarily, including running and XFCE bar on the Left side of my screen with links to rdesktop and associated GUI (for managing Windows boxes), gnome-terminal (because quite frankly OSX's term program isn't that good), and xmms (because when I'm working late sometimes I want to listen to music that I don't want inserted automatically into my iTunes library). I use Fink to manage those dependencies... and you know what? It does a damned good job. A weekly launch of gnome-terminal, followed by a "fink selfupdate; fink update-all" then leave anything to compile while I continue working keeps my system clean.

As for your comments about OSX being a toy; who's bashing other OS's now? OK, so it doesn't fulfill specific needs you have. Does that necessarily make it the wrong operating system for everyone? As I said above it does precisely

Re:What I think they should change...

[Anonymous Coward]

With Linux, you're expected to have to ask around on forums a read lots of man pages to learn how to do the kinds of tasks that Linux people do.

Not if you don't want to do that kind of tasks. All caps "READING" is seldom encountered even in the darkest corners of the GNU/Linux community, people generaly either walk away frustrated because no one was around to answer or didn't know the answer, or with links and other useful information.

Inconsistent User Interface -- just use UNO

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a consistent interface in Tiger today, use UNO, Aqua4iTunes, TigerMail (make Thunderbird into a Mail that works), and UNO GrApple (make Firefox into a Safari that works). Seriously, these 4 apps/themes together will make Tiger much nicer to look at.

Finder ...

[Anonymous Coward]

5/15 points talk about Finder.

Why not ditch finder (which is a pain to use when you've used Konqueror, Windows Explorer and even Nautilus) once and for all and replace it with a modern and easy to use file manager (Konqueror would be the best candidat IMHO) ?

Re:Finder ...

[x3rc3s]

You should check out Path Finder. It is way beter than Apple's finder!!

Re:Finder ...

[soft_guy]

Some of us are still bitching because the OS X Finder isn't more like the classic Finder. And then we go and install third party extensions to make it more like the classic Finder. And we like it that way.

Re:Finder ...

[ceoyoyo]

Please no! I hate Windows Explorer. Last time I used Konqueror (it was a couple of years ago) it was very close to Explorer but WAY slower. I like Finder much better, thanks.

Re:Finder ...

[TheRaven64]

There are three kind of Mac users:

1. Those bitching that Finder is not like the the Classic Finder.
2. Those bitching that Finder is not like the NeXT Finder.
3. Switchers.

Re:Finder ...

[DarkVader]

Um, because the points are mostly wrong?

Seriously, Linux would be MUCH better if somebody would write a full implementation of Finder for it. I won't go into windoze, it's just an abortion, there's no saving it.

Re:Finder ...

[soft_guy]

There are three kind of Mac users:

1. Those bitching that Finder is not like the the Classic Finder.
2. Those bitching that Finder is not like the NeXT Finder.
3. Switchers.

In other words, former Mac users, former NeXT users, and former Windows users.

12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[XxtraLarGe]

This one would be a complete disaster. The dock is cluttered enough as it is. That's what they made Expose' for.

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[el_womble]

Agreed. Its like the authors have never used windows. Within 10 minutes of sitting at my desk at work I have 20 or so application instances running from cmd and textpad to Eclipse. It renders the bottom of my screen useless. You might say "Ahh, but XP collates them into a single button!", thats worse!!! The only system I've found that manages 20+ windows effectively is Expose.

As for the comment about printer support... plug printer into Airport, press print in any application on any computer on the network and then select printer from the bonjour printer list. Easy. Want a direct connection, skip the part about the Airport.

They had a point with the look and feel, but to be honest it doesn't bother me as perhaps it should. And cut and paste is just not the mac way of doing things... we drag and drop EVERYTHING and Expose makes that easy.

I'm sure given time I could come up with 15 things that annoy me about OS X, but their gripes seem trivial at best. How about disconnection from network drives slowing down the WHOLE system? Or the way the firewall settings are in 'Sharing'. Trivial things that annoy me are that fink hasn't been absorbed into the default install and X11 is still concidered an optional extra - being able to install quality free software like Scribus/The Gimp from a Synaptic like interface could really open peoples eyes to OSS.

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[peragrin]

not quite the author's point but he still missed the obvious.

Open up your HD and drag the applications folder to the dock. If you click onit, it opens the folder. If you right-click on it you get a contextual menu of everything it contains.

I know that some people use spotlight. both are just as fast for me though if my hand is on the mouse anyways I will use the mouse.

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[a.phoenicis]

Well, how about this:

Add a second little black arrow to indicate there is a second window open for a given App? Hovering over the arrow could raise that window of the App. If there are more arrows than would fit under the width of the icon, then it could seemlessly switch to "^6" to let you know how many windows are open.

Sometimes I lose a preference window, or dialog from a running application, and this would help immensely. I love Expose, but its value diminishes when you have more than 20 windows open at once.

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed on everything. I don't quite understand the complaint about printers either, never had any problems setting them up. Although getting to the config window for them is somewhat annoying (at least for my cannon in panther). You open the printers window, select the printer you want the click on config (or whatever they named it) and then procedes to present you with a dialog to choose which printer you want to configure. I already did that.

About X11, it would be nice if the official Apple build of X11 had decent font support. It might in tiger, but in pather, you are much better off installing it from fink. Also something about the fast-user-switching mouse-bugs that I mentioned in my reply to the parent affect X11 applications much more than native OS X ones.

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[GraZZ]

If your app has a properly implemented Window menu, all its windows will be listed in there.

I can't tell if the writer is unhappy that you can't do this on the Dock without the context menu or if he thinks that context menu on the Dock is the only way to get a list of windows. It isn't.

Also learning the keyboard shortcut Cmd-` (beside 1) to switch between an app's windows is your friend.

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[Beeman]

To find out why setting up a printer on OSX is so difficult, try adding a networked laser printer without typing in the IP address. And once you figure it out, let me know.

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[wiredlogic]

Agreed. Its like the authors have never used windows. Within 10 minutes of sitting at my desk at work I have 20 or so application instances running from cmd and textpad to Eclipse. It renders the bottom of my screen useless. You might say "Ahh, but XP collates them into a single button!", thats worse!!! The only system I've found that manages 20+ windows effectively is Expose.

You do realize that you can rezise the taskbar to span multiple rows? The XP grouping is annoying but at least it is easily disabled.

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[sjaskow]

Or even better, get a decent virtual desktop application from Windows like virt-dimenstion which is Free or Virtual Desktop Manager from Microsoft and free or even pay for one.

I do it at work. My mail client is one desktop, my editors are one another, web browser on a third, etc, etc.

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[Coryoth]

Agreed. Its like the authors have never used windows. Within 10 minutes of sitting at my desk at work I have 20 or so application instances running from cmd and textpad to Eclipse. It renders the bottom of my screen useless. You might say "Ahh, but XP collates them into a single button!", thats worse!!! The only system I've found that manages 20+ windows effectively is Expose.

The only system you've found that manages 20+ windows effectively is Expose? Certainly it is one system that is effective. Personally I also find multiple desktops, with the taskbar set to "Show windows from current workspace", and a pager, works remarkably well. It's easy to group sets of windows onto desktops in a generally task oriented fashion, and with only a small collection of windows per desktop the taskbar never gets cluttered. Throw in a Window Selector applet (a single button that provides a drop down list, organised by desktop, of all your open windows) for completeness sake and you have a very effective system. Better yet the system scales remarkably well - if you need alot more than 20 windows just add more desktops.

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[elecngnr]

I am also perplexed by the printer comment. I have to use Windows at work and in my experience setting up printers for Windows is a freaking nightmare compared to OS X. In fact, I am not sure it could be much easier to set a printer up on OS X....even networked printers. So, I am not sure if they were reaching to try to come up with something and someone--who maybe does not use OS X that much--suggested printers, but I cannot see where the complaint is coming from.

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[Dan East]

They had a point with the look and feel, but to be honest it doesn't bother me as perhaps it should. And cut and paste is just not the mac way of doing things... we drag and drop EVERYTHING and Expose makes that easy.

As a developer that spends quite a bit of time on GUI design, I strive to create interfaces that can be completely driven by the keyboard. I do 95% of my text selection via keyboard (CTRL-SHIFT-LEFT / CTRL-SHIFT-RIGHT to select words, CTRL-SHIFT-HOME / CTRL-SHIFT-END to select lines, etc), all of my copy/pasting via keyboard (CTRL-C or CTRL-INS to copy, CTRL-V or SHIFT-INS to paste), and all of my application switching via keyboard (ALT-TAB, ALT-SHIFT-TAB).

Since the keys on my keyboard are not virtual, and exist in my world, I can hit them instantly without having to locate them, or otherwise use any higher-level processing whatsoever to activate them. Mouse pointers are particularly evil, because of the amount of processing and fine motor skills involved in using them. They are a virtual representation that I must use visual cues to interact with. The potential for error with a mouse is also much greater. With the keyboard I can do something as complex as selecting text, copying it, switching to another application, and pasting it very, very quickly with a set of absolute boolean keypresses. With a mouse everything is relative - it isn't the exact same motion every time, because the distance I have to move the mouse is dependent on so many things (resolution of the display, size of the windows, location of windows relative to one another, the speed in which I move the mouse because of mouse acceleration, etc). That slows me down, increases the chance of error, and requires much more mental processing.

With my software (healthcare software requiring substantial data entry and navigation) I always teach people how to fully navigate the UI with the keyboard, so they don't even think of using their mouse. The worst possible interface is one that requires both the keyboard and mouse alternately.

Now, I am not an OSX user, however I will say that IMO Apple has always seemed to lean towards a mouse-centric interface. Fundamentally I think that is a bad thing for the very reasons I outlined above. The thing that got me was your post saying how dragging and dropping everything was so easy, whereas I think it's the exact opposite. Perhaps you really meant intuitive, as in it requires a smaller learning curve up-front at the cost of requiring more effort every single time you perform the action forevermore. I guess it's the coder in me that feels it is better to spend extra time implementing something efficiently, knowing that the code will be executed many millions of time. A little extra effort up front saves massive runtime in the future.

This reminds me of the movie Johnny Mnemonic, where he got a VR kit just so he could browse the internet. It immediately struck me how much work it was taking for him to interact with the virtual environment, and how incredibly ludicrous of a UI they presented. A completely mouse-centric interface is not too many steps away from that.

Dan East

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[el_womble]

Yup, it really is the only I find that works effectively. I've tried virtual desktops, multiple desktops and XPs god forsaken application bar, but Expose is the one that works for me.

I don't mind virtual desktops, its what I use on Ubuntu and I'm looking forward to the feature in Leopard (although having to remember the desktop is a PITA).

I sometimes use multiple desktops, but find the the additonal mouse/neck travel meant that it was only useful to have one monitor for reference material and one for working - quite tempted by having an eInk reader on my desk.

I've tried bigger monitors and higer resolutions, but without Expose all that does is reduce eye strain.

Expose is the best for me. YMMV.

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[Aram Fingal]

Let me add a little to your point about the keyboard being error prone for user input. Many people think of keyboard shortcuts as being for advanced users but I have found that older people with bifocals, who are new to computers, do much better with keyboard input. Not only do they often have little experience with the motor skills of using a mouse but the bifocals sometimes make it more difficult to see where the pointer actually is.

Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock

[Aram Fingal]

The slowness with disconnection of network drives is something which has been discussed here on Slashdot before (unfortunately my own post on the topic was too far back to easily find it). It does slow down the whole system but what really bugs me is that it completely locks the Finder. You should still be able to browse other, non-network, disks in other windows in the Finder while you're waiting for a network timeout but you can't. The funny thing about it is that the Finder in Mac OS 9 actually had more multithreading and could do this, IIRC.

WTF ? No F2 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"2. Renaming Isn't Easy. The process of renaming files is highly mouse-centric on the Mac. There's no F2 option (as there is on Windows) that lets you select the file and press F2 to expose the filename-editing mode. The mouse process requires very precisely timed mouse clicks. Anyone who has ever been forced to rename a long list of files under both Windows and Mac operating systems will likely agree that the Windows way is easier. --Michael Cullison"

Well, pressing the 'Enter' key does precisely that.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Divebus]

Highlight the file/folder and hit return.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Divebus]

oh... you said that...

Biggest problem with switchers is they try to use their Windows chops.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Dan Hayes]

Because obviously the Enter key should perform a relatively unused operation like renaming rather than opening the file, which is actually Apple+O.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[peragrin]

On Macs Enter and Return do two separate functions.

Return Opens the app/doc/ whatever. Enter(found on the numpad) renames it.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Dan Hayes]

On Mac laptops the only key you have (which has the return key icon on it) renames the file.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[HTH NE1]

2. Renaming Isn't Easy. The process of renaming files is highly mouse-centric on the Mac. There's no F2 option (as there is on Windows) that lets you select the file and press F2 to expose the filename-editing mode.

You hit F2 in Windows to rename files? And that's supposed to be intuitive?

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[peragrin]

well I might have had it backwards. I have a mac laptop, but I normally use an external keyboard with it.

Also On a laptop if you select a file to open it with the trackpad why would you then press enter or Apple O to open it?

So the rename part would be more useful.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[_xeno_]

No. It's not supposed to be intuitive. It's supposed to be useful.

There are quite a few really useful Windows short cuts that aren't exactly easy to find. They're there for power users more than they're there for "regular" users. Once you learn to use them, they're very useful. I'm sure someone can find Mac OS X shortcuts that aren't exactly easy to discover but make certain tasks far easier.

Unfortunately Windows makes it painfully difficult to discover these shortcuts (they're not listed as accelerators in the right-click menu or in the corresponding menu in the application menu) but that's a different complaint.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[rmayes100]

I think the argument is opening a file is something most users do a lot more often than renaming them (especially application folders, why would I ever want to rename those?) and thus should be the more intuitive option of the two. Not to mention in Mac OS X the enter key is also the equivalant of a mouse click in a form with a default button enabled (and for submitting web forms) so having the enter key open a highlighted file in the finder is more consistant (in my mind) with how the enter key works in the rest of the operating system. I've been using OS X for 2 years now and the enter key to rename a file (instead of opening it) in the finder still trips me up on a regular basis and I don't think it's because I'm still used to windows or linux, it's because it just doesn't make any sense.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[my_breath_smells]

CMD + down arrow (apple + down arrow) will open the highlighted file or app

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[neoform]

Apparently he doesn't understand that Return or Enter is the OSX equivalent of F2..

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[MBGMorden]

You can also "reclick" (click a highlighted file but no so soon after hightlighting it to cause a double-click) to rename, or, my personal favorite, just right click on select rename from the context menu. The reclick thing is kinda sorta useful but I find that I bring up the renaming mode on accident this way far more often than I do so on purpose.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[spitzak]

On mine the Return key also has "Enter" printed in gray on it. You hold down the lower-left "fn" key and hit it. Maybe they changed this on more recent models?

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Dan Hayes]

Because I tend to navigate using the keyboard rather than the trackpad if possible? If you have a lot of files in a folder it's quicker to get around that way.

Quite frankly Finder is a steaming pile of crap. Dire keyboard shortcut support, especially in dialog boxes, a horrible tree view (with an even more broken keyboard set of behaviours), the not-updating bug mentioned, I'm sure there's been other things I can't remember.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

F2 ... Return/Enter

What's the difference?

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[lostboy2]

You hit F2 in Windows to rename files? And that's supposed to be intuitive?

Heh. No, it's not really intuitive, but it's a convention that's been around for awhile. I don't know who started it (Lotus 1-2-3 maybe?), but most spreadsheet programs like Quattro Pro, Lotus 1-2-3 and Excel use the F2 key to put the current cell into "edit mode".

So, using F2 to put a selected filename into "edit mode" (i.e., rename) is not too much of a jump.

As a Windows & Mac user myself, I'd appreciate having F2 be a shortcut for renaming a file as well, but I haven't lost any sleep over it.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's about as intuitive as throwing your floppy in the trash to unmount and eject it.. Anyone not familiar with apple peculiarities would assume "enter" would open the file with the associated application. Anyone but a total bigot would forgive him this assumption.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Cro Magnon]

What's the OSX equivalent of Enter (to open the file)?

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a longtime Windows/Linux PC user, I wholly agree with the sentiment (in some replies to this) that "enter for rename" on Macs is a bad idea... I have to use a Mac at work, and have found many issues which I believe would exist even if I had no PC background. (I majored in Informatics, so you might say I've had a bit of experience with UI literature :D )

Using the enter key to rename a file is just stupid. Often I eschew the mouse for certain common tasks on Windows which I can do very quickly without moving my hands from the keyboard. (And I play first person shooters, so it's not like I have a geriatric mouse hand.)

Consider that I want to run a shortcut from my desktop...

Winkey+D minimizes all windows, maybe a tab or two to make sure desktop is selected, type in the first few letters of the thing (and windows goes to it), and then I hit enter. But on a Mac, the last step is just not possible. Why assign such an important key to RENAME of all things?

First, consider frequency. Renaming is such a comparatively uncommon activity, it would even be a step up if enter were to behave like a right-click, allowing you one more level of richer options.

Secondly, consider intuition. An interface is good if it acts as people expect. F2 on Windows isn't intuitive. But it's not supposed to be--that's an advanced key combo and most people will recognize that the F1-FX keys are "mysterious and special". However, 'enter' should intuitively mean whatever left(-double)-clicking does, not "rename". What next, "escape" means "e-mail this item to a friend"?

--Terr, who has no account.

P.S.
My anti-bot word is "raging". How appropriate :)

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[shrykk]

You hit F2 in Windows to rename files? And that's supposed to be intuitive?

No, but it is sensible. If you're renaming a file, you're about to be hitting the keyboard anyway - 'rename' should be a menu option (with a convenient shortcut, such as F2). I find from time to time I try to click to open a file and the Windows GUI thinks I want to rename it - incredibly annoying. It's just the typical Windows thing of making things easier for novice users at the expense of everyone.

Hmm, I'm drifting off-topic. Here's hoping having a little moan about Windows is never off-topic on Slashdot :-)

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[slughead]

2. Renaming Isn't Easy. The process of renaming files is highly mouse-centric on the Mac. There's no F2 option (as there is on Windows) that lets you select the file and press F2 to expose the filename-editing mode.

You hit F2 in Windows to rename files? And that's supposed to be intuitive? The Mac way is to highlight the file and press Return or Enter.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[HTH NE1]

No. It's not supposed to be intuitive. It's supposed to be useful.

Unfortunately Windows makes it painfully difficult to discover these shortcuts... but that's a different complaint.

Hardly different. The Mac way is far easier to discover than the Windows way(*), yet the article's authors haven't bothered to find it. Instead they decry why you can't do it the Windows way rather than learn (or even try to discover) the Mac way.

BTW, how do you zoom in the display under Windows XP Pro? On the Mac it is as easy as holding down the Control key and scrolling the mouse. Very easily discoverable (now, compared to earlier Mac OS X versions), but not too easily (i.e. mistakenly triggered) like how Control-Scroll changes font sizes in Linux Firefox (gets in the way of searching for the next instance of text on a page) because of how Control is used on that platform for a command key.

(*) And easier to remember. I didn't know you could hit F2 in Windows to rename a file, and I've used 95, 98, and have two machines with XP Pro installed at home. But without this griping about it now burning it into my memory I'd probably forget about it before I'd have the opportunity to use it. And such an inconvenient key to use, too, for such a common function like renaming a file! That reduces its usefulness too.

The only function key I know to use on a PC is F8 for Safe Mode, and it took 5 months before someone finally told me about it so I could fix an IRQ conflict with a sound card that was locking up my system on restart. I'd found on-line everything I'd need to know to fix the problem, every convoluted step including multiple restarts to get the sound card to use a different IRQ number, except which fucking key to use to get into Safe Mode! I remember it now by calling it the "fate" key. (I accept that Safe Mode is not a common operation, but as such one shouldn't assume general knowledge of how to get to it!)

You may now laugh at me for not knowing how to use the three seashells.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[HTH NE1]

Anyone not familiar with apple peculiarities would assume "enter" would open the file with the associated application.

And thus would quickly discover that it renames files.

That someone familiar with Windows where, apparently, Enter opens files, would not discover this strains credulity.

Do Windows users regularly hit function keys in every application searching for command bindings?

Meanwhile, Command-O is advertised under the File menu as opening files in every application, including the Finder. So, is there a non-movie example of how "ribbons" work on Vista? I'd like to see how they advertise keyboard command bindings.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[HTH NE1]

I find from time to time I try to click to open a file and the Windows GUI thinks I want to rename it - incredibly annoying.

Here's something that works for me for both Windows and Mac OS: if I want to open or select a file, I do my clicks the icon; if I want to rename a file, I click the name.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Mattintosh]

Apple-O (as in "File" > "Open"). I'm not sure if Apple-[Right Arrow] works in every situation, but in some situations it does the same (think about a "tree" directory listing... right arrow to open folders, left arrow to close folders, drill down to an executable file and right arrow still opens it).

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[koreth]

Which, coincidentally, just happens to be my #1 OSX UI peeve. Why should hitting Enter do something I almost never want to do (rename the file) instead of what I intuitively expect it to do (open the file)? Everywhere else in the UI, Enter is short for "execute the currently selected function," but somehow you're expected to want to spend all day renaming files rather than actually using them.

Yes, I know about command-O. I'm saying it would make much more UI sense for rename (the rarely-used function) to require a two-keystroke command, and for the keystroke that usually means "execute whatever's currently selected" to open the file.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[peragrin]

I am hoping a new finder is in the works. It really is holding the rest back.

though I don't think finder will have it. most likely 10.6

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

What? You don't realize that F2 to let you rename a selected file is easier to remember than hitting enter?

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[peragrin]

hopefully that will teach me not to eat lunch and post to slashdot at the same time.

I believe it's to late for Leopard to have a new finder but hopefully with 10.6

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

My (British) PowerBook has both an enter key and a return key on it. The enter key is the standard upside-down 'L' shape, while the return key is next to the direction keys and the right hand command key.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[keytoe]

Opening a document can be an extremely expensive operation if the owning application isn't already running (think Photoshop). Opening the WRONG document can be a WASTED extremely expensive operation. When fat-fingering the return/enter keys, I would much rather the Finder toggle me into 'edit filename' mode than have it launch Photoshop.

This philosophy is scattered all around the OS. The more expensive the operation, the more input you need to provide. That applies to dialog boxes with and without default options as well as shortcut keys. Incidentally, this addresses the Shutdown/Restart confirmation complaint as well - both terribly expensive operations (as noted elsewhere, this is avoidable by holding down option key - more input).

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Politburo]

Unfortunately Windows makes it painfully difficult to discover these shortcuts

Help, "Keyboard shortcuts", works in most MS programs.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[ProfessionalCookie]

How about a real printed manual? That should be included with every computer. *sign*

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, how do you zoom in the display under Windows XP Pro? On the Mac it is as easy as holding down the Control key and scrolling the mouse. Very easily discoverable (now, compared to earlier Mac OS X versions), but not too easily (i.e. mistakenly triggered) like how Control-Scroll changes font sizes in Linux Firefox (gets in the way of searching for the next instance of text on a page) because of how Control is used on that platform for a command key.

If by scroll the display, you mean change font size, control + [+-] works. The = also works in place of the +. Control and the scroll wheel also appears to work. I'd never tried that before.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Hitting apple+o for opening a file is Mac OS behavior since atleast OS 7.5.1.

Probably, definitally, earlier.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but the mouse process does not require "precisely timed mouse clicks." It requires one click: if you click on the name of a file, whether it is currently selected or not, then after a slight delay (less than a second), the file name becomes editable.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

> If by scroll the display, you mean change font size, control + [+-] works. The = also works in place of the +. Control and the scroll wheel also appears to work. I'd never tried that before.

That is only for web browser. On a mac Control-Wheel enlarge the whole screen, whatever the applicaiton you use is.

Not a very nice feature (could have been better graphically), the shortcut is too easy (it is something you seldom want) but can be changed. Biggest issue is that it doesnt support multiple monitors correctly...

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[hackstraw]

Which, coincidentally, just happens to be my #1 OSX UI peeve.

I questioned that too at first, and then I realized it was due to the fact that Apple-O to open them instead of Enter. Its VERY difficult to hit Apple-O, its easy for a cat to step on a keyboard and hit the 2nd largest key on the keyboard.

The same goes with deleting files. Sure it would be easier to hit the delete key or whatever, but what about Apple-Backspace to delete them.

That too will not likely happen by accident, and then you can bypass the chronic bozobox asking if you really want to delete crap.

These things are by design, and once getting used to them and thinking about them, they make a whole lot of sense.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Surlyboi]

You have an Enter key on Mac portables as well.

Look for it.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[chaosmind]

You're absolutely right. The user interface is supposed to make sense: if I have an icon for a file or program selected and I hit the "Enter" key, it makes sense that I want to enter that file or program.

Whether or not F2 to rename a file "makes sense" is rather a silly argument (does F7 for spell check make sense? we all seem to have learned that one). What really pisses me off is that right-clicking (control-clicking, whatever) on an icon *doesn't* give you the option to rename in Mac like it does in Windows/GNOME/KDE. No damn good reason for that.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[HTH NE1]

That is only for web browser. On a mac Control-Wheel enlarge the whole screen, whatever the applicaiton you use is.

Not a very nice feature (could have been better graphically),

I like it better than the options I see under Windows: drag a large magnifier around or have another window in a corner magnifying your mouse. Hopefully what you want magnified doesn't need to be rendered bigger than the magnifying glass or isn't obscured by the magnified-view window. Expanding to the whole screen is much more preferable.

Or do you mean that it smooths out the magnification, not giving fatter square pixels with delineations between them?

the shortcut is too easy (it is something you seldom want) but can be changed.

I have yet to accidentally trigger it. Macs bind commands to the Command key; Control is for modifying operations. Which is why Control-Scroll in Firefox on Linux and Windows is so damn annoying to me: I keep triggering it when I really just want to scroll the in-page search results up for more context.

Biggest issue is that it doesn't support multiple monitors correctly...

Well, it expands the whole covered area across all screens to all screens. Whether or not that is "correct" is a matter of opinion. I do grant that it does glitch if you try to magnify the areas that don't correspond to visible screen space.

But then I'd like to see an improvement in how all systems handle multiple displays. Maybe I don't want them docked right next to each other in memory. Maybe I want a gap between them to account for the bezel. Maybe I want them to overlap so that part of a display can be the same as the S-Video out going to the TV or NTSC recorder. Even better if I can reposition their relative positions on the fly without having to go into a control panel. And maybe I want the system to realize that the two displays have different dpi, so games should render in one with more or less detail than the other. Only Linux comes closest to this level of functionality.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[gknoy]

However, 'enter' should intuitively mean whatever left(-double)-clicking does

Why should it? That doesn't seem particularly inherently intuitive. I would certainly EXPECT that to be the behavior, because I'm accustomed to windows, and "enter" being the "select" / "click" equivalent when tabbing around in most web browsers.

It seems like it's "intuitive" only because that's what we're accustomed to in other operating systems (and thus, habitual).

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[koreth]

I don't buy that. I can't remember a single time when I ever hit the Enter key after selecting a file I didn't actually want to open. I can remember more instances than I can count of, "Dammit, I wanted to open it, not rename it! Stupid UI." The current UI adds annoyance and gives me nothing in return; if you're right, it's trying to protect me from a mistake I never make at the cost of making the thing I do want to do less convenient than it could be. When I hit Enter on a file, it usually means I was navigating with the keyboard, and keyboard navigation is very precise.

If opening a file unintentionally is so bad, why is it okay to perform that expensive operation on a double-click? In my experience, missing the item you want is far more frequent when navigating with the mouse (or, worse, the trackpad) than with the keyboard. So if anything, I'd expect double-clicking to be the place you'd want the "protect you from opening the wrong file" UI (if, in fact, you want such a UI at all.)

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[toddestan]

Opening a document can be an extremely expensive operation if the owning application isn't already running (think Photoshop). Opening the WRONG document can be a WASTED extremely expensive operation. When fat-fingering the return/enter keys, I would much rather the Finder toggle me into 'edit filename' mode than have it launch Photoshop.

On the other hand, if I'm in "fat-fingered" mode, I don't want to be accidently renaming files either. Atleast if I accidently launch Photoshop, it's easy enough to close.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Stinking Pig]

Your comment really helps to solidify something that I've felt for all the years I've worked with Apple's OS'es. It's not that I'm annoyed with implementation details, it's that I fundamentally disagree with the philosophy of the design.

The interface was designed and built for people who don't use computers after extensive research into what would make them want to buy a computer. It's a damnable horrorshow for people who use computers every day. I use and have used KDE, XFce, Gnome, FVWM, XP, 2000, WfW3.11, OS 9, OS X, &c, as well as watching other users of these OS'es while helping them with problems. Unix UI's are the most productive as measured by speed of successful input, followed by Windows 2000 and XP. Admins working on Linux or BSD get things done at the speed of their thoughts, and the best Windows people are almost there. Both use keyboard shortcuts extensively. The OS X people, when they aren't explaining why Macs are better and they're being unfairly cheated out of their rightful place at the head of the class, are slow to get things done. Basic operations like copying files, editing files, and restarting applications just take longer. They use mice extensively.

Subjective observation, subjective opinion, and subjective dislike. My Macbook gathers dust while my PC gets used all day every day.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[eMilkshake]

Actually, yeah it is. F2 in Excel does in-place editing, so if you're a heavy Excel user.... Oh, wait, wrong board. :D

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

1/ Of course it is better than what windows does. But that is hardly a benchmark.

I think that apple could have down some sort of fish-eye cool zoom instead of the raw zoom they did. And the result is quite blurred (sure, I know why, but there could be some better filtering done to sharpen the edges).

I mean, what apple does seem to be some bicubic interpolation, which is fine for digital pictures. For sharp edges images, which is what most of the UI is, you can use a different filtering kernel, and get sharpers images.

2/ I have often triggered it accidently (because control-scroll is the enlarge font in MS Windows Mozilla, so maybe it is only occuring to me).

3/ I have a MacBook Pro with a 30 inch monitor. It plainly doesn't work correctly. If I zoom on the 30 inch I cannot move around and the zoom jumps all over the place. Unusable.

And sure, there could be improvments on multiple monitors in general (but I think that what apple does is already pretty good).

Have a nice day.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[HTH NE1]

Another hit of Return/Enter gets out of renaming mode by renaming the file to itself. Also, Escape will cancel the rename operation. Also, if you'd intended to open it, Command-O (or any other Command-key operation) would also cancel the rename operation.

Apart from the operation expense argument, generally, someone using the mouse to select a file isn't likely to want to use the keyboard to open a file, but will use the keyboard to rename a file. Further. Enter/Return is along the path a right-handed mouse user will be moving his hand to get it to the keyboard. (Left-handed mouse users and touchpad users tend to already have the right hand near the Return key.)

If your hands are already keyboard bound and you are opening a file, Command-O is uniformly Open across all properly designed Macintosh applications since the original Mac 128K already and another binding for that operation is not needed. So why not have Return/Enter start a rename operation when it already finishes one?

It makes more sense than going to the Start menu to shutdown.

Re:WTF ? No F2 ?

[HTH NE1]

Whether or not F2 to rename a file "makes sense" is rather a silly argument (does F7 for spell check make sense? we all seem to have learned that one).

F7 does a spell check? Wh-- what does an operating system need with a spelling checker?

Widgets on the Desktop

[Divebus]

Yes, widgets can be put on the desktop but it's not that graceful.

• Invoke the "manage widgets" bar.
• drag one (calculator?) into the widgets field.
• Keep holding the mouse button and hit F-12.
• Let go.

All the widgets disappear except for the one stuck to the end of your mouse pointer. Just be ready to have the widget float on top of everything and let it be swept away next time you look at all your other widgets. It's good for temporary use but I agree with the premise of using widgets as apps.

Re:Widgets on the Desktop

[saddino]

t's good for temporary use but I agree with the premise of using widgets as apps.

You can convert any Dashboard widget into an OS X app using Amnesty Singles (awhich also lets you select what level your widget app sits in, so it isn't floating all the time).

Re:Widgets on the Desktop

[Divebus]

Wheeee!!! Thanks for the tip on Amnesty Singles.

Not just looks

[Henriok]

A good user interface does not just look good but it behaves good, the positioning of controls, orderig of menues, behaviour in execution and, choice of language in describing functions and so forth are perhaps more important. Safari, Mail and iTunes behaves very consistently even if they might look somewhat different.

This is why Windows ports and many Java-applications get the cold hand from Mac users. They might look like Mac applications at first glance. The have all the right graphics in all the right places and they might even have a nice icon (but they rarely do), but they usually behave quite differently. Dialogs that pop up in unusual places, ordering of controls, unfamiliar language, exotic install procedures, strange toolbars, Window behavior that's odd and menuers that doesn't contain what one would expect. Everything that might excite a Windows user but makes a Mac user get on the defensive immediately.

It's not just "look" it's even more the "feel". Mail, iTunes and Safari feel the same.

This cuts both ways.. iTunes and QuickTime Player does not behave like Windows applications.. and that's propably one very powerful reason why these applications are shunned to a large extent.

Re:Not just looks

[nostriluu]

Do you mean the way the delete, esc, cursor and other keys work consistently in all Mac dialogs/apps, including Apple ones? Oh, they don't?

Do you mean the way Apple breaks the great rule of only putting important things on edges (which are easiest to reach) when they meanwhile put the Eject and Front Row buttons in these key positions on the MBP?

Oh, probably there is a boatload of $10 add-ons that will fix these issues.

Actually, what I really think Apple should do is replace the lollipop/beachball "oh, I've run out of system resources *again*" indicator to something that at least has some useful information. It's kind of dumb otherwise.

Re:Not just looks

[Henriok]

esc - Apple doesn't define any specific use for this key. It's under-utilized afaik.
delete - Apple doesn't define any other use of this key besides removing the character to the right. Backspace is another matter, and it have a very consistent use.
cursor key - what key is this? I can't find it on my MacBook Pro and I havn't seen it on any Mac ever.
Front Row key - what key is this? Have you even seen a MacBook Pro?
eject - it's positioned prominently on almost any device which has one.

What important keys do you miss at the edges? The ctrl-alt-del key?
Oh wait.. just cram in 20 multimedia/internet-keys with nonstandard symbols on
crowding the keyboard. Ahh.. UI bliss!

Concerning the spinning beachball.. a spinning clock or an hourglass is more informative? Perhaps a dialog should appear each time a application doesn't answer for 2-3 seconds? Or better yet, produce a Wizard guiding the user through a diagnostics process. Well no. I think the big issue here is to fix whatever causes the applications to produce the beachball, not the beachball itself.

Re:Not just looks

[Paradise Pete]

meanwhile put the Eject and Front Row buttons in these key positions on the MBP?

What Front Row button?

Re:Not just looks

[nostriluu]

Well, you certainly make a lot of assumptions.

I use a mac - a mac book pro, for nine months now. I am not enough of a cultist to believe it's perfect. Before that I used Linux, and I despite multimedia keyboards.

Points 1, 2 - esc and delete work in some mac apps (mail, dialogs), but not in others (finder). There are other examples, but I'll treat your laziness with laziness.

If you don't know what cursor keys are, you must have some kinda mouse. Or maybe you just like avoiding discussions with semantic boondoggles.

Front row key is by default cmd-esc. Have you ever seen a MacBook Pro? It's right beside the commonly used cmd-`. So when trying to switch between application windows. Or maybe you don't know about that shortcut, there are so many secrets. Anyway, it's likely one will press cmd-esc and get the simptastic Front Row.

Yes, Eject is right there - one of the easiest keys to type on the keyboard. I guess you missed my point, read some Raskin and maybe you'll see, or maybe you eject CDs more than you use any other key on your mac? You must be quite a multimedia maven.

Finally, the spinning beachball. How about it fancifully giving us a small readout of Activity Monitor info. I guess it's beyond your imagination because the Mac is perfect as is.

Re:Not just looks

[nostriluu]

cmd-esc. If you use cmd-` a lot, you'll know what I mean.

Re:Not just looks

[Parsec]

Oh... I do use command-`, lots, but haven't stumbled on that one yet. That's neat, thanks for the tip.

Re:Not just looks

[nostriluu]

You must be less clumsy than I. I was repeatedly hitting it, because it's the easier combination to hit (same with delete vs eject). Worse, it takes so long to come up, and it has such a dorky interface (imo). Out of malice, I mapped it to control-shift-command-option-Esc.

Re:Not just looks

[djrogers]

This cuts both ways.. iTunes and QuickTime Player does not behave like Windows applications.. and that's propably one very powerful reason why these applications are shunned to a large extent.

Hunh? iTunes has a HUGE, RABID fanbase amongst windows users. I know tons of people who use iTunes on windows in spite of the fact that they don't even have iPods! Heck, a number of people I know have begun their investigation into switching due to the (relative) awesomeness that is iTunes... Perhaps the techno-elite who love xmpp or winamp can't stand it, but to say that iTunes is 'shunned to a large extent' is just plain silly...

Re:Not just looks

[Paradise Pete]

cmd-esc. If you use cmd-` a lot, you'll know what I mean.

Thanks. Just the other day I was getting ready to watch a movie. Everything was all set - I parked the laptop on the coffee table in front of the couch, parked a girl on the couch, poured two glasses of wine, dimmed the lights, curled into the couch.... and then realized I'd forgotten the remote. Not knowing how else to invoke it, I instead fumbled around launching DVD player, which of course is not nearly as impressive a way to play it. :-)

I use escape a lot (because of TextMate's autofill), but I never hit the command key while doing so.

So the new question was, what do you use cmd-' for? But I see that it cycles through windows. So thanks, you've been very helpful today ;-)

Re:Not just looks

[5plicer]

Actually, what I really think Apple should do is replace the lollipop/beachball "oh, I've run out of system resources *again*" indicator to something that at least has some useful information. It's kind of dumb otherwise.

The spinning beach ball does not mean I've run out of system resources. A detailed explanation can be found here. It just means that a single application is having problems (e.g. it could be caught in an infinite loop).

Re:Not just looks

[5plicer]

By the way, here's one of the most common causes of spinning beach ball syndrome. An application tries to communicate with a server, but the developer just assumes that the communication will succeed and doesn't bother to start another thread. Sure, eventually NSConnection will time out. But until then, the frustrated user is stuck with a spinning beach ball.

Multiple Docks

[Anonymous Coward]

I've only been using the Mac for about a year, and my biggest complaint is that the dock is kind of useless as compared to Gnome or Windows XP's interface. I'd really like it so that it's possible to have a different dock on the left, right and bottom of the screen.

What i thought sucked about OSX...

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the fact i couldnt maximize the windows. Only by placing it on the top-left and dragging to full-screen. Im used to having an option to maximize my windows.

Also i really missed a quick and simple way to start programs with keyboard. In windows i can do start->run or navigate the start menu easilly, in OSX i had to resort to third-party tools for this (quicksilver).

Also the fact that during the 6 months i had my mac mini it crashed about 4 times didnt help my mac experience either...

Its been a few months since i've last used OSX though so im not sure if any of the UI options i missed are currently available in plain vanilla OSX.

Re:What i thought sucked about OSX...

[eldepeche]

You can use Spotlight as a primitive launcher. Works for me. Command space, the type the first few letters.

Re:What i thought sucked about OSX...

[Divebus]

Maximizing windows is, well, a Windows thing. That's probably the first habit to break for new Mac users coming from Windows. If Windows didn't maximize everything, new Mac users would "get" drag and drop faster.

Re:What i thought sucked about OSX...

[AKAImBatman]

Drag the Applications folder into the Dock, next to the Trash can. (Be careful not to trash it!) You should get a shortcut on the Dock that's easy to access. The three ways are:

1. Click on the icon to open the Applications folder.

2. Right click to get a popup menu.

3. Hold down the left button (or single button if you're using a stock mouse) until you get a popup menu.

That's what I use, and it works exceptionally well.

Re:What i thought sucked about OSX...

[MBGMorden]

You can't dismiss certain behaviors away as "a Windows thing" then people truly want their system to behave a certain way. If I'm programming I'll have little windows strewn all about. Several terminals, emacs, a calculator app, etc. If I'm web browsing there is NOTHING else I want to see on my screen except for the damn web browser. Any extra windows or desktop icons that are on my screen are useless clutter that could be used by displaying more of what I'm actually working with. If you don't want a maximize button then that's fine, you should be able to turn it off (or not turn it on, I don't have a problem with defaults), but if I do want one don't tell me that "it just doesn't work that way".

Re:What i thought sucked about OSX...

[ischorr]

One of my favorite things about OS X + the Dock was sort of mentioned in the article, and might help you here.

Try dragging your Applications folder down to the Dock. Now right-click on it. Bam, instant application grouping and easy launcher.

Since in OS X, moving applications around is as easy as moving them from one folder to another (and they still work afterwards!!) it's pretty easy to organize apps in the way you want, by creating subfolders, creating multiple "applications" folders, etc.

I usually end up having 3 folders in my Dock for quick access to apps - the Applications folder, a "Games" folder, and MS Office. Inside Applications I might even put apps into sub-categories (like "Browsers" and "Media players", etc but usually I just keep them in one big folder. If the list grows too long it's very fast just to scroll through them with the mouse wheel.

I agree with the author of the article that putting the Applications folder in the Dock by default would be a good idea. I've never met another person that used OS X that realized this was possible, and 100% of the folks I've showed this to have found it to be extremely useful.

Re:What i thought sucked about OSX...

[Fahrvergnuugen]

And if you want to limit which apps are in the docked context menu:

1. create a new folder
2. option+command drag the applications you want in the menu to the new folder
3. Drag the new folder to the dock
4. Right click it or left click hold

Re:What i thought sucked about OSX...

[dloose]

I'm guessing you stopped using OS X before the release of Tiger. When I switched from Windows to OS X, I had trouble adapting to the new method of launching applications. I hated having a cluttered Dock but I still wanted quick access to every app on the machine. My solution was to put the Applications folder in the Dock, creating a crude replacement for Windows' start menu.

(aside: At the time I thought it was crude. After getting used to it, I found it more elegant than the start menu because it got right to the point. In XP, I'm presented with a monster of a "menu" when I click start. It has "pinned" apps on the left and a slew of folders on the right. Sometimes I actually have to hunt for the "All Programs" menu. I know I can change this, but I prefer "pinning" my frequently used applications to the QuickLaunch bar. Between the system tray and QuickLaunch, I've seen computers that only have space for maybe 4 programs in the task bar. Auto-hiding system tray icons and grouping task bar items is not a good solution for me. I've never found the start menu to be anything other than a user interface abortion.)

With the release of Tiger, I've found that I use Spotlight to launch applications that aren't in my Dock more and more. It's basically the same functionality you get from QuickSilver without all the fancy plugins. I know a lot of people can't live without QuickSilver, but I don't mind switching to iTunes when I want to play a new song, so I really don't feel the need.

Re:What i thought sucked about OSX...

[eldepeche]

Try "(app menu) -> Hide others," usually command-option-h (except in Photoshop, I think), to clear other applications' clutter. I usually have a few browser windows with a few tabs each, and I find it works well.

Re:What i thought sucked about OSX...

[Trumpet of Doom]

If you want to maximize, do you see the little green button in the top-left corner, to the right of the red and yellow ones? Click that and watch what happens.

Starting programs with the keyboard can be done through Spotlight, as mentioned above, or by doing this: Move the Applications folder to the Dock, press Option-F3, scroll over to the Applications folder, press Return, and then scroll to the app you're looking for. (To check that or to change it, open System Preferences and go to Keyboard and Mouse -> Keyboard Shortcuts.)

Re:What i thought sucked about OSX...

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

I agree with you about putting the Applications folder in the dock, but I would go further, by having each hard drive appear in the dock next to the middle line by default(instead of on the desktop by default), and by having removeable media appear in the dock next to that by default.

I would also include users' Documents, Movies, Music and Desktop folders, so users can get to their stuff quickly(I right-click on my Desktop folder in the dock frequently, to quickly see what's on the desktop).

I have a few more suggestions for the dock:

1. spring-loaded folders in the dock (I hear a rumor that this is in the 10.5 betas)
2. An option to reorganize [applications][folders][files][trash] and add separators, and put them on different sides of the screen if I want, or not have them pinned together.
3. hierarchical smart folders in the dock(Right now, you can drag them in, but you can't navigate them as a menu. WTF?)
4. Some kind of better way to view names, and much more descriptive default folder icons, like these
5. Reverse the behavior when dragging to or out of the dock. You should have to hold apple to add something or drag something out, versus the way it is now, having to hold apple to prevent it from adding something or from dragging something out. Right now, if you hold apple and drag something out of the dock, it moves it. If you move it out of the dock and then hold only option, you copy it. If you move it out of the dock and then hold apple and option, it makes a shortcut.
   
   This behavior would be more consistent by reversing the behavior.
6. Control-clicking on a minimized window should bring up an option to Close the damn window, not just open it.
7. When right-clicking on an app in the dock, the menu should include:
   • Hide [name of Application]
   • Hide Others
   • Show All
   • ------
   • Preferences
8. Hidden applications should be grayed out by default in the dock, rather than needing the terminal command

   defaults write com.apple.Dock showhidden -bool yes

Re:What i thought sucked about OSX...

[Divebus]

You are an exception. 99.3% of all Windows users have no concept of "little windows strewn about" (verified by Netcraft). They think there's something wrong when more than one window is showing, so I'll modify my pronouncement and say it's a "Typical Windows User's Thing", even though Windows itself insists on maximizing EVERYTHING. It's hilarious to see a new Mac user with his new 20" iMac saying "how can I fill the screen with this?" - and it's only an email compose window or a browser window where most of it turns into white space anyway.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[TeacherOfHeroes]

One of the things thats always bothered me when I use OS X is the way that the maximize button behaves. I can see how its behaviour under OS X makes sense in a certain way (Only enlarging to be 'big enough'), but I maximize a window to hide the clutter behind it as well as to see some more content in the foreground window.

I've dug around in the system preferences a bit, and looked on google as well, and can't seem to find any way of changing this behaviour. Would an option to change behaviour be so hard? As silly as it may sound, its been one of the few annoying things thats really been keeping me from using OS X in any serious manner.

New features or better documentation for old ones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Renaming Isn't Easy. The process of renaming files is highly mouse-centric on the Mac. There's no F2 option (as there is on Windows) that lets you select the file and press F2 to expose the filename-editing mode. The mouse process requires very precisely timed mouse clicks. Anyone who has ever been forced to rename a long list of files under both Windows and Mac operating systems will likely agree that the Windows way is easier. --Michael Cullison

Select the icon. Hit Return. Type. Done.

. Backspace and Delete Keys. The world holds millions and millions of computers that have Backspace (delete left) and Delete (delete right) keys. Most editors and writers who've been exposed to Windows notebook keyboards that have both of those keys can tell you that moving to a Mac notebook that has only a Backspace key (called "Delete" on the Mac) can be frustrating. Yes, yes, we know that Fn-Delete performs a delete-right operation. But that's not a good solution for touch typists.

Try Control-d. Most text input supports emacs key bindings (yes you can override this to use other bindings)

NUmber 10 is flat out silly

[Moby Cock]

I must take exception to their: 10. Accessing Applications discussion. Having a second tier of apps or whatever on the dock, would, I think ruin the minimalist elegance of the dock. Finding lesser used apps is what Spotlight if for. Click the button (or Apple+Space, which is much simpler) and type what you want. Done. No expanding submenus a la the Start Menu.

Re:NUmber 10 is flat out silly

[phillymjs]

I gave Spotlight a chance, but IMHO it couldn't match the speed or configurability of LaunchBar for launching apps (among other things). I think Apple should just buy LaunchBar or QuickSilver and integrate it into the OS.

Re:NUmber 10 is flat out silly

[varmittang]

Or better yet, drag and drop the Applications folder to the right side of the dock, then right click on it and you will get a drop down menu like display of all the apps in the applications folder. That is what I do.

Re:NUmber 10 is flat out silly

[yabos]

Leopard will be better for quick launching apps like LaunchBar by moving applications to the top of the list.

Re:NUmber 10 is flat out silly

[jimlau]

Adding the Applications menu to the Dock (first icon right of the separator) is the first thing I do on any new Mac I set up. I feel like that is a good solution for an Application launcher, and I think that in itself reflects the flexibility of the Dock. I don't feel like Apple needs to make any drastic changes there, but that might be because I'm so used to it this way.

I also add my Home folder to the Dock as well, as a quick way to get to documents and whatnot. These are actually the only folders in the Dock on my notebook.

Re:Number 10 is flat out silly

[CrawlingEvil]

Actually, there's a very easy way to do this. Do the following for less used applications:

1. Create a folder somewhere. Personally, I created a folder called "Applications" in my home directory.
2. Create subfolders inside the folder of step one, if desired. I created folders such as "Adobe", "Office", "Admin", "Games", etc...
3. Open a second Finder window (this will make things easier)
4. Browse around and find applications you'd like to occasionally access, so our example, let's use "Adobe Photoshop CS3"
5. Click and drag the application from the second Finder window to where your subdirectories created in step 2 are displayed. Now, here's the tricky part, while holding down the command and option keys, drop the application into the "Adobe" (or other) folder. Note: This is creating a link to the original file, similar to a Window's shortcut (as opposed to symbolic link). You'll know you're doing the right operation if your cursor looks like an arrow sweeping up to the right.
6. Repeat until you've creating links to all applications you care about.
7. Now, drag the folder created in step 1 to your dock.
8. Finally, when you want to run one of these application, just click and hold the icon in the Dock. A hierarchical menu will appear with all your subfolders and applications. Note: If you have a two button mouse, you can just right click the icon for faster pop up.

It's that easy, but apparently, not obvious, even though Steve Jobs demoed doing something very similar in one of his keynotes when Apple added the ability to drag folders into the Dock.

Re:NUmber 10 is flat out silly

[Thumper_SVX]

Oh, and you can drag your Applications folder down to the dock next to the trash can... then you can right click that folder and get your apps in an heirarchical menu sort of like Windows. No, it doesn't do it by default, but is that wrong?

Re:NUmber 10 is flat out silly

[nieske]

Or, better yet: Quicksilver. It's basically a better version of Spotlight, with the additional power of performing actions, like moving files, displaying contacts' phone numbers in large type, controlling your iTunes, a calculator function, and much more (and there are tons of plugins to do even more). Your whole machine is just a ctrl+space away! (Seriously. I know I sound like a %*^&#$ commercial, but it's really that good. Once you get to know it, you'll be addicted. Trust me.)

Re:NUmber 10 is flat out silly

[slughead]

Finding lesser used apps is what Spotlight if for.

I just put a bunch of aliases (shortcuts) in a folder, put the folder in the dock, and right click for a "dock submenu"

Re:NUmber 10 is flat out silly

[gowen]

Some of us rate functionality over minimalist excellence, especially in reference to things with which we are expected to earn our living.

Re:Number 10 is flat out silly

[Mattintosh]

I'd much rather Apple bring back "popup folder tabs" from MacOS. In MacOS 9 and earlier, you could create a folder, open it in a window, drag the window to the bottom of the screen, and poof! you have a tab at the bottom of the screen that would pop up when you clicked it, kinda like a drawer at the bottom of the screen.

Re:NUmber 10 is flat out silly

[chochos]

I absolutely love Quicksilver. I only use Finder and/or spotlight to deal directly with files, but to run any app, Quicksilver is the best option. To find any contact without having to open the address book, the quickest way is with QS too. I often forget it's not part of the OS. The philosophy behind it is great, having an app that doesn't get in your way and all that.

Re:NUmber 10 is flat out silly

[raddan]

You can also drop the whole Applications folder on the Dock, on the same side of the divider as the Trash can. In fact, you can put all kinds of filesystem objects on that side. I like to drop disk images onto the Dock so that I can mount them quickly, but don't have to deal with the automounter which would do it every time I log in.

Re:NUmber 10 is flat out silly

[kevingolding2001]

Hey, that's actually pretty neat.

From time to time I need to run things like activity monitor or disk utility.

Currently I have to open a Finder window, type 'uti' (or scroll down using the blue thingy), expand the utilities if not already open, type 'act' (or scroll down more using the blue thingy), press 'Enter', remember that this was not the right thing to do, press ESC to get back out of rename mode, press Apple-O to open it.

Using spotlight not only navigates there just as quickly, but lets me open the app by pressing Enter.

That Apple-space combination is good to know.
Thanks

Re:NUmber 10 is flat out silly

[Rxke]

Or click and hold... A bit slower but you don't need a two button mouse or touch the ALT-key...

No suggestions from the Microsoft camp!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I like the suggestion about making the resizing of windows easier.

Other than that, my wife and kids (11,7) have absolutely no problem using their iMac. They just want a computer they can use. Apple has accomplished that goal.

I really don't know...

[spikev]

...if we should trust someone to give design interface advice who spreads their article over four pages.

Re:I really don't know...

[concept10]

This is why no one should take these articles seriously. They only serve to drive page views. These type of articles are the ones I hate most posted on the web.. someone authored a piece last year about driving web traffic and they said the easiest way it to write articles/blog posts with titles such as "10 Reasons you should...", "15 Most annoying..", "12 Applications you should have." You get the point. I have digg in my RSS reader under Slashdot and I see at least 5 of these type of articles every single day and we hatesssss it. The author is nitpicking at best, there is nothing really serious in there except for the complaint about Finder. Every other thing could probably be handled with some third party app. Anyway, this is why I prefer the GNOME desktop to Aqua.

Re:I really don't know...

[DataSurge]

Great point!

Re:I really don't know...

[slim]

...if we should trust someone to give design interface advice who spreads their article over four pages. You think the web site was designed by the same person as wrote the article?

Re:I really don't know...

[Jtheletter]

...if we should trust someone to give design interface advice who spreads their article over four pages.

No, but we could probably get some sponsored ad income advice from them. ;)
I must admit I loathe that tactic however.

Re:I really don't know...

[XLR8DST8]

4x the amount of pages necessary = 4x the ad revenue.

looking different

[__aahlyu4518]

"Open iTunes, Safari and Mail. All three of these programs are Apple's own, and they're among the ones most likely to be used by Mac OS X users. So why do all three of them look different? "

Maybe because you don't want to click 'reply' when you want to buy a song? ;-)

Re:looking different

[hcdejong]

That's no reason to change the way the window looks.

Re:looking different

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

Open iTunes, Safari and Mail. All three of these programs are Apple's own, and they're among the ones most likely to be used by Mac OS X users. So why do all three of them look different?

I always figured the reason Apple decided to vary the look of some of their app windows was that, if you're a user who uses Exposé a lot (as I am), it's extremely helpful to be able to immediately identify which windows you want by their shape and color scheme and not by having to look within the mini-window to see what's inside. This is especially helpful if you keep so many windows floating around that the representions in Exposé are tiny. If I want to switch to Mail.app, I just look for the (IMHO) ugliest window on the screen, instead of peering around 20+ (at times) identical-looking windows to see what's what.

Re:looking different

[moosesocks]

the iTunes argument doesn't really hold water, as iTunes is released separately from the OS, and just about every major Music-playing app I know of breaks the standard UI conventions. iTunes, Winamp, and Windows Media Player all do. Out of those three, I'd say that iTunes makes the best effort to fit into the surrounding UI, while maintaining a sense of identity and uniqueness.

If you want to complain about Safari, take a look at Firefox. It doesn't really integrate fully into *any* OS, given that it uses XUL instead of whatever native toolkits are available.

I'd actually say that Mail feels similar to iTunes. Apple seems to be gradually migrating all their applications over to the smooth grey color scheme. This effort obviously takes time. I can't say that I fully approve of Mail's appearance compared to some of the other smooth grey applications out there. The toolbar is kind of ugly.

Re:looking different

[Anonymous Coward]

Foobar2000, Quodlibet, Amarok and Banshee are great music players. Foobar2000 looks like any windows application, QuodLibet and Banshee looks like any Gnome application, Amarok looks like any KDE application (with a bit of "web" feel).

iTunes, Winamp, WMP or even the linux XMMS aren't what i'd consider "worthy-quality". They have a crappy, playskool UI designed for the stupid.

Application instances and open documents in Dock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Noooooooooo!

Screw that-- it's my most hated feature of Windows. Perhaps it's finally been addressed in Vista, but there was nothing worse in XP than having, say, 10 IE windows open and minimized, along with enough other apps that your taskbar buttons for everything only contained the application icon, with no other information. Okay, so which IE window is one is the one I want? Let me just open them all up until I find it!

I much prefer Apple's method of having a single Dock icon for each application that produces a menu with all of that application's open windows listed.

UI (in)consistency?

[stivi]

Many times I read about UI inconsistency in Apple applications, such as those mentioned in the post: Mail, Safari, iTunes. I note it as well, that they look different. However, I realize that I do not feel the inconsistency whle working with them, I do not notice it. Strange, how come? How it is possible, that I was feeling the inconsistency on my Linux machine even there was unified look of all applications and I am still feeling inconsistency on any Windows machine where is unified look as well? I found out, that it is not about the look, but more about the feel, more about the behavior of applications, more about expectations how the applications will react to your commands, how the applications understand your intentions.

I agree, UI look in Apple applications is not consistent, but the behavior is in majority cases consistent. And that is what counts. While working, you do not notice whether the app is brushed metal, Aqua or grayish plastic.

It is just my observation...

Re:UI (in)consistency?

[mehemiah]

I'll second this (and all the above rebuttals to this particular UI issue but I REALLY hope they put the aqua scroll back on iTunes. please put the aqua back Apple, please!

Re:UI (in)consistency?

[noidentity]

One difference is that Safari and iTunes (and QuickTime) are generally one-window programs, where the window acts more like a piece of equipment than a view of a (particular) document. Mail is a document-oriented application (like TextEdit), so it's less like a piece of equipment. Though there is some truth to history playing a role in differences in appearance; if you keep changing the appearance of programs in order to keep completely consistent, long-term users will have to keep re-adjusting to everything.

Re:UI (in)consistency?

[nine-times]

While you wait: Aqua4iTunes

Re:UI (in)consistency?

[derubergeek]

How can any of you Apple fanboys claim that Windows is inconsistent? For example, Ctrl-F does EXACTLY the same thing, no matter what app you're in: in Word it's Find, in Outlook it's Forward, and in TextPad it's...

Okay - never mind.

The actual quote...

[MarkusQ]

Sometimes consistency isn't the hobgoblin of little minds.

IIRC, the actual quote they were going for is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and the point he was making is that small-minded people tend to get bogged down worrying about consistency where it doesn't really matter. In other words, if your list of biggest gripes includes items like this, get a life.

--MarkusQ

Re:The actual quote...

[rcs1000]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

Not that your post was an example of that, or anything :-)

Re:The actual quote...

[dfghjk]

I guess it's Apple that gets to decide what's "foolish" when they argue menu grammar as an example of why Windows is inferior to MacOS. Talk about something that doesn't really matter...

I fail to see how consistency in any of these matters is a bad thing regardless of the clever but meaningless quote. Valid criticism is valid criticism.

Re:The actual quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony - Someone posting to a Slashdot comments thread telling someone else to get a life!

Re:The actual quote...

[imagmast]

Sometimes consistency isn't the hobgoblin of little minds.

IIRC, the actual quote they were going for is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
         

The real actual quote is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, statesmen and philosophers."

this is why engineers design shitty UIs

[Uksi]

The complaint from these experts is that the look of the UIs is different. Brushed metal here, but flat gun-metal gray here! OMG, that's so inconsistent!

And, sure, that is inconsistent.

But who gives a flying dog! The key is that the applications really are easy to use. What is consistent is that excellent flow of interaction, where each of those interfaces is simpler than Windows apps, much less frustrating than Windows apps. It's the reason why Apple users stays loyal to Apple: they design the user experience well.

Hell, if my Windows apps were as straightforward, I wouldn't care if each one was the color of the rainbow!

Those experts can't see the forest for the differently colored trees. Yet, I bet they are patting themselves on the back about their insightful analysis of differences.

Re:this is why engineers design shitty UIs

[Pope]

But who gives a flying dog!

Microsoft, apparently. It shows up by default every time I try to do a goddamn file search!

Re:this is why engineers design shitty UIs

[Uksi]

It doesn't even fly though...

Re:this is why engineers design shitty UIs

[soft_guy]

But who gives a flying dog!

 

Microsoft, apparently. It shows up by default every time I try to do a goddamn file search!

I find that the Search dialog in Windows takes a lot of clicks to use. Is it just me, or could that thing stand to be improved?

Re:this is why engineers design shitty UIs

[Intron]

I was going through my toolbox and found out that my screwdriver has one handle, but my pliers have two. Not only that, but they were different colors! What's going on? This is a totally inconsistent user interface.

All tools must have exactly the same user... h,mm maybe not. Maybe these Windows and Mac experts were not user interface experts.

When I have 5 applications running on the desktop, it's usually a very good thing that they look different.

Re:this is why engineers design shitty UIs

[oohshiny]

But who gives a flying dog! The key is that the applications really are easy to use.

Indeed, who does? Well, Mac users apparently do because they keep complaining that Linux UIs are soooo inconsistent. That's ironic because Linux UIs actually are far more consistent than the Mac. This is kind of like Mac users were complaining that multitasking was such a bad and confusing idea, until MacOS actually ended up supporting it, at which point they started sounding like Apple invented it.

Re:this is why engineers design shitty UIs

[eldepeche]

Yeah, Linux UIs are consistent. Give me a call when all the gnome applications use the same font sizes (which are set in a gnome preference, not app preferences). This has been enough to keep me using Evolution, which freezes every time I click on a card in my contacts, rather than sylpheed or cronos or balsa or whatever. Evolution is the only one that looks right.

Re:this is why engineers design shitty UIs

[oohshiny]

rather than sylpheed or cronos or balsa or whatever. Evolution is the only one that looks right.

That's because those other apps are not official Gnome desktop apps, they are simply apps written using Gnome libraries.

By analogy, you can't always blame Apple for inconsistent third party applications, but you can blame them for inconsistencies in their own UIs, and there are lots of those.

Hidden Folders

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Apple:

Make hidden folders viewable in finder, I don't care if I might break anything. I don't want to have to go to bash any time I want to work with /usr

While you are at it, the putting the date on the desktop thing is a good idea.

Re:Hidden Folders

[Anonymous Coward]

They had it right in "Panther" and broke it horribly in "Tiger".
In "Panther", with 'AppleShowAllFiles" enabled, normally invisible items would be visible, but "ghosted" so you could tell that they were normally invisible.

In "Tiger", everything looks washed out. It's stupid.

Re:Hidden Folders

[Dog-Cow]

You can do this yourself, using SetFile (IIRC).

Re:Hidden Folders

[AKAImBatman]

Dear Anonymous Coward,

Your Mac has some great features that already allow you to access these folders! To access /usr, click "Go" -> "Go to Folder" in Finder. Then type "/usr" and click on "Go".

While you're at it, consider adding the Calendar Widget to your Dashboard. This will allow you to check the date with a simple "F8" keypress.

Re:Hidden Folders

[Anonymous Coward]

For getting the time/calendar thing right, I find Objectpark Software's MenuCalendarClock an indispensable tool. Even the "I don't have to pay for these features" version is extremely elegant--I wish there was a comparable windows version for at work. http://www.objectpark.net/mcc.html

Oh f***

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of all of these suggestions, about one or two actually made sense, but it's a freaking disaster that these geniuses trying to transform OSX into something that would most likely only fit THEMSELVES perfectly haven't thought about one very annoying aspect:

Why the HELL doesn't the Finder allow the user to sort files with FOLDERS ON TOP, instead of mixing the cursed things in an unholy and undistinguishable mess together with files? It's completely messed up navigation, contanstly forcing the user to switch between Type-sorting and Name-sorting just to find what the user wants, instead of neat and tidy putting all the damn directories SEPARATELY.

Idiots. Both the writers and the chumps at Apple.

Re:Oh f***

[Quiet_Desperation]

I'd like to see that, too, at least as a Finder preferences option.

I just put a leading underscore or space in my folder names. Sorts them to the top. It's a kludge, but a relatively simple one.

Re:Oh f***

[h3]

Oh my god, no. I hate this about Windows and I hate the Linux UIs have adopted it.

I know the name. Don't make me stop think "Hmm, is that name going to appear in the first sorted set or in the second?". Why does having "Foo" show after "Bar" make any sense just because it's a directory?

Should the phone book be sorted by sex first, then name?

Maybe it is just me

[Nick Fury]

The person or persons who wrote this article seemed to be in a hurry to come up with 15 items. Three of them are all about how to view things sorted in Finder and even then they seem to relate back to resizing the window, which is also one of the items listed.

I think they were rushed to meet a deadline and were really just wanting to cause a ruckus with an editorial piece about how Apple is not to their personal liking. I don't think they actually put much effort into writing this article.

The shutdown thing is laughable. It actually takes me less key presses to shutdown on my Mac than on my windows machine. If the person writing the article had patience they could also wait the 25 seconds it takes the machine to shutdown automatically once the shutdown button has been pressed. Personally, I use that time to get up and stretch for a few seconds.

Re:Maybe it is just me

[paulpach]

In all fairness, if the system will shut down in 25 seconds, it should say so. It can be as simple as a countdown clock on the confirmation dialog: "The system will shut down in xx seconds".

Re:Maybe it is just me

[xero314]

It can be as simple as a countdown clock on the confirmation dialog: "The system will shut down in xx seconds".

I'm confused, when I shut down my mac I get a window like the one you are talking about you are talking about, though it starts at 2 minutes not 25 seconds.

Re:Maybe it is just me

[paulpach]

never mind then, I don't have a mac, and I misinterpreted the comments of other people.

One more thing...

[Secret Agent X23]

More options for resizing windows is the item in the article I'd most like to see implemented. But I'll add one more of my own: I'd like to have a button I could click on to go up one level in the hierarchy of folders.

Re:One more thing...

[je ne sais quoi]

I agree. There is a workaround though. I use the Finder in column view, and then instead of using the sidebar I use the old (10.1) style shortcuts on the Toolbar. Here's the hint I submitted from this place.

Okay, let me preface this by saying this is a shameless two-bit hack. I finally got around to buying 10.3 yesterday, and the lack of a horizontal scroll bar in the Finder windows has consumed several hours of my time trying to fix/break this bug/feature. The "feature" goes like this: if I click on the Home folder, which is a special folder (like Applications, Documents, etc.), the Finder roots me at that place and pulls the horizontal scroll bar from the bottom of the window. (Someone here already pointed out that a work around is typing "command-up arrow" a few times). My solution is a bit different, I discovered that clicking on non-special folders doesn't cause this rooting "feature" to activate. So what I did was make aliases of all the special folders that I was interested in, and put them in a directory out of the way someplace (e.g., in folder in my Library). Now after a little icon management to get the aliases looking like the original directories (see other tips on this site), I put the aliases in the Toolbar and Voila!, the horizontal scroll bar has returned in all its hierarchial glory. One thing though, I haven't figured out a way to get this to work with the Sidebar. When I try the system decides that I really mean the special folder itself and not the alias. This isn't a problem for me because I'm not using the Sidebar at the moment."

Re:One more thing...

[mallardtheduck]

Ctrl/Right-Click on the Finder's toolbar, click "Customize toolbar...", add the "Path" item.
Now, you can click that button to go anywhere in the path above the current view. Yes it takes two whole clicks, but it's pretty much what you asked for.

Re:One more thing...

[Tombstone-f]

I know this isn't a button but pressing cmd-up will go up one level in the finder.

Re:One more thing...

[Secret Agent X23]

Thanks. Works like a charm. I also found that in the customization I can replace the icons with text labels, which I prefer.

Re:One more thing...

[WillAdams]

You don't even need to waste screenspace on this --- just command-click on the icon / name and you'll get a pop-up menu showing everything beneath the current folder.

William

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[eldepeche]

It isn't a maximize button. The last time I owned a computer that primarily ran Windows was in 2001, so I'm used to it. I use the "Application -> Hide others" command to get rid of the clutter of other windows.

Click to friggin front... thats whats wrong.

[McNihil]

The very bad "Click to front" and the lack of "auto mouse focus" makes usage crippled. Heck even Amiga had layers back in 1986 and was capable of doing it.

Looking forward to virtual desktop on 10.5 though.

I'll stick with gnome thank you very much.

Re:Click to friggin front... thats whats wrong.

[Quiet_Desperation]

That's very subjective. I use Unix a lot at work and I hate auto mouse focus. I don't want something getting the focus unless I tell it to.

But then again all this proves is that it would make a good prefence selection for the Finder.

Re:Click to friggin front... thats whats wrong.

[also-rr]

Do you use focus follows mouse (Linux way) or focus under mouse (Solaris way)? The difference is that the former gives focus to an application when you move over it (so if the mouse is over no app the last one you moved over has focus), the latter is much stricter.

The former is really useful. It lets you type in windows that are partially obscured and is a massive productivity boost for power users. The latter sucks ass and leads to the things that usually puts users off focus follows mouse such as moving the cursor out of the way onto the background so they can see what they are typing causing a loss of focus from all applications.

Re:Click to friggin front... thats whats wrong.

[MBGMorden]

I've used both and like neither. I usually don't like my mouse cursor anywhere in the window that I'm typing because enevitablly, I type a lot, and the text reaches my cursor and gets obscured for a few characters. It's minor, but it has caused me to generally "flick" the cursor away from the app window when I start typing (sometimes completely off screen, sometimes just out of the way). With either focus method, half the time I'd be clicking on an area to type, "flick away my cursor" to get it out of the way, and now all of a sudden a different app has grabbed focus. Clicking is just better IMHO. You've got to move the mouse in either even - what does a simple click when you get there hurt?

Re:Click to friggin front... thats whats wrong.

[McNihil]

All my terms hide the mouse cursor as soon as I begin typing so I have never the cursor being in the way.

Also I tend to have 8 1600x1200 desktops full of app-windows and if I had to click for every time I switch "context"... OMG. Even if I would be using Alt-Tab.

One other thing that I am using that is confusing for normal user is edge-flip (Brightside for gnome.) Personally I can not live without edge-flip.

Re:Click to friggin front... thats whats wrong.

[spitzak]

Well perhaps the programs could, um, *hide* the mouse cursor until you move it? Just a thought.

Re:Click to friggin front... thats whats wrong.

[spitzak]

I absolutely agree. "Click to front" is by far the biggest problem with the user interface on Windows, Mac, and Linux.

Now let's get this straight, as you are recommending an even worse thing with your "layers" idea. The actual solution is simple:

1. When the user clicks in a window, that app gets the mouse click. NOTHING ELSE HAPPENS!!!!

2. There is an API so an application can raise it's own window, or place it immediatly above or below some other window.

Notice that it is TRIVIAL to emulate current behavior (call the "raise window" api on any mouse click). This means by definition that there is absoltely NO question that this is the proper api, no matter what the proper GUI is. There is no argument about this, so don't even try. If you think there is some problem with the system not doing something that the program can do easily itself, you are not thinking very hard.

This simple change will enable actual use of overlapping windows. It will allow a program to display two different UI windows whose total area is greater than the screen and still be usable (such as, in my case, a large data flow graph and a large picture showing the result), rather than the tiled interface we are forced to use today. It will allow floating toolbars that really work and let you work with more than one document and thus eliminate a huge kludge of toolbars and methods of managing them. It will allow programs to change their mind about whether a window is "modal" or not. It will eliminate a big mess of complex "child/modal/transient-for" api to the window manager, all of which are simply methods of stopping windows from raising on clicks.

The tiled interface was rejected back in 1984 when the CMU Andrew project died and was replaced by X. It was actually debated for awhile which is why the api to X window managers is so complex and programs are supposed to not assumme their windows are the requested size, but it is gone. X11 removed the "click to top" behavior that was in X10 and it was clear then that this is the correct solution. But somehow, mostly due to Windows compatability but even NeXT had this, it has snuck back. And people are apparently BLIND to the problem, they instead propose enormous complex systems of child/modal/transient-for and "layers" and window types and having the system know about toolbars and OS/X gadgets and all kinds of horrible stuff that all boils down to stopping windows from raising on click. The frustration of seeing people completely ignore the simple and obvous solution, for 20 years now, is incredibly frustrating!

PS: no-click-to-top has nothing to do with focus-follows-mouse (though I like that too). It is just more blindness, people are apparently unable to concieve of clicking without raising, so they cannot see a way to type to a lower window except by using focus-follows-mouse.

7. Motif is not user interface, etc

[penultimateman]

#7 is just silly. First of all, brushed metal and shiny scroll bars have nothing to do with user interface. These are surface elements which are totally seperate from functional (ie UI) elements. Secondly, why should all applications look the same to begin with? The rooms in my house don't all look the same. Each of these applications look different because they are different. All doorknobs don't look the same, but I still know how to use them. If an application is intuitive and responsive, like iTunes, Safari, and Mail, it should look different from other applications. It's called style. I suspect #7 was written by a computer with poor visual pattern recognition.

I don't want all my apps to look the same...

[Fysiks Wurks]

From the article (and Summary): "7. Inconsistent User Interface. Open iTunes, Safari and Mail. All three of these programs are Apple's own, and they're among the ones most likely to be used by Mac OS X users. So why do all three of them look different?"

I don't want my apps to all looks the same . Just like I don't want all women to look the same; women all have the same basic framework and operating system. But I definatley want to be able to quickly distinguish between my wife and my mother-in-law! "Hey honey, I thought I'd join you in the shower.....DEAR GOD Nooooooo!"

I do want the menu bars, etc., to follow a standard so features are easy to find - like prefereneces, print, quit, etc.

Re:I don't want all my apps to look the same...

[rob_osx]

You made my day with the visual of "I thought I'd join you in the shower". Great! I'm still laughing about it. Great point.

The Finder and files

[azav]

In OS 9, files in the finder uset to update as they were being created. As the file gets bigger, the finder entry updates. All too often, this only happens if the file has been clicked on in an open window. So a 1 G file looks like it is 128 K.

Yes, it completely sucks.

Also, often when copying files up to a volume on the Internet, the status says 5 seconds left, then writes "closing file" for the next 7 minutes.

Complete stupididy.

Finally, many times, files are written into folders that are open and they do not appear at all until the folder is "dirtied" somehow. It's really great to have a friend across the world, open a folder, you copy something into it and he can't see it at all.

Complete crap.

Where is the friendlyness of the PRE OS X Finder?

What happened to "put away"?

God, I hate the Finder.

Re:The Finder and files

[mallardtheduck]

Yes, I realize that the Finder doesn't update it's view automatically, probably because until 10.3 the UNIX components for monitoring folders simply weren't there, meaning it would have to poll to do it. (Polling==Bad).

Never had the Internet copying problem though, maybe it's due to your host?

"Put away" is just silly. Prior to Mac OS X, the desktop wasn't a "real" place (an artifact from Macintosh System 1.0 in which folders were implemented as file attributes), it just displayed files that were set to display there, on multiple disks. I guess Apple realized how confusing that was to just about everyone else, and now the desktop is an actual folder. Why do you want to go back in time?

Re:The Finder and files

[azav]

Copying files to the internet, to an iDisk or logged onto my static IP from ANYWHERE does what I mentioned. El bummero majoro grande.

Also, I thought "Put Away" was stupid but after moving files around and putting them in the trash and the desktop, it's nice to just have the finder "put them back where they were last. Sometimes a feature can exist for years that ou never use but when you finally do, it works for you.

FYI, a trick in the open folder to show files that haven't appeared yet is to create a new folder and then delete it. Lame but it works. Also, with some of these files that are created that are several gigs and the finder thinks are 128 K, doing a "Get Info" properly shows the file's size but STILL the Finder doesn't update the size readout. It's "Even More Lame!(TM)".

Grumble! Stupid Finder. No biscuit.

Re:The Finder and files

[azav]

Doh! I forgot to mention, have you tried PathFinder?

I do use it along with the Finder since it is rather less sucky yet a bit more complex.

Cheers.

Re:The Finder and files

[soft_guy]

Put Away is NOT silly. It was very useful if you put something into the trash and then changed your mind, but couldn't quite remember where it was previously.

I miss the classic Finder. In some ways it was better than what we have now.

I don't particularly care for the Dock or for Expose. I don't like having spotlight taking up space on the Menu bar. And I want my application menu back (which I actually have using ASM - but because of SpotLight it doesn't get the corner like it is supposed to).

Re:The Finder and files

[Guy Harris]

Never had the Internet copying problem though, maybe it's due to your host?

Or perhaps it's due to the remote file system mechanism he's using (iDisk, if I remember correctly, which means WebDAV) either doesn't support delivering "hey, something changed" notifications to the client or doesn't support kqueue notifications (the "UNIX component" to which you're referring).

I.e., to some degree, this is a case either of the Finder being blamed for something happening at lower layers of the OS or for not working around deficiencies in the lower layers. In this case, the workaround would involve polling the directory if it can't be monitored with a kqueue or if no notifications would be delivered to the kqueue. (Another example of this are complaints about FTP access being read-only; the Finder isn't doing the FTP access, it's ftpfs, which is implemented with a user-mode NFS daemon, which would have to guess when you're done writing to a file to know when to push it back to the server; WebDAVfs has its own kernel stub, which can deliver "file is closed" indications, rather than using the NFS client as its kernel stub, so it knows when to push the file back.)

But most Mac users probably don't know any of that, so they naturally think of these as Finder problems because the problems manifest themselves when the Finder is what's being used (and I can't really blame those Mac users for that).

UI

[Backus.Naur]

Anyone who has spent a little time with Blend and Vista will realized that Apple has just lost its UI advantage. Last year I bought the Mac for my wife with few comptuer skills. Of course I raved about how easy her life would be. Well, it just aint true, Pages was harder for her to use then word. Print Shop on the Mac wasn't as complete. Websites stopped wokring on Safari. (Firefox was better) Attachments drove her crazy. ( No MS office, and the converting to Pages was far from perfect ) Only 1 of 10 kid's games were compatible. WiFi worked not as well. ( PC sitting right next to it got much better signal, surfing experience ) No Spider Solataire..( Ok that's funny but I had to find one for Mac ) iPhoto was the one highlight, but now vista's photo thing is close enough, and Picasa is also available. This Christmas she's getting a Dell with Vista.

Re:UI

[mallardtheduck]

So, she was used to Word and used Word documents, but you didn't buy Office for Mac and instead chose to use Pages, which is *different* from Word and needs a little getting used to, just as any other program does.

I stopped using Firefox on my Mac because Safari is much faster and I virtually never experience a website that doesn't work properly (some websites have "look" glitches, but I can live with those).

Never had any Wifi troubles, how can you compare the Windows and Mac's signal strength, when you don't know if the signal strength percentage is calibrated the same, or if even the same algorithm is used on the two platforms?

Re:UI

[rob_osx]

I agree that Pages is no Word, so why didn't you get MS office for the Mac? Yes, there are some websites that don't work with Safari..Gap and Citibank are the two we frequent. I've emailed them many times to write webpages that would handle Safari. Attachments drove her crazy? This is a puzzle since I think attachements are really easy in OS X..to each there own. Yes, there are not many kids games for the Mac as there are for the PC. Here are some things that my wife who was an avid PC user before I got her a Mac loves: 1) It just works. She uses the computer all the time and its nice not to have to worry about installing drivers. 2) No worries about viruses...even better not having to install a virus scanner and keeping it updated...oh yeah, it's a pain to have apps that won't work when the virus scanner is running. 3) Mail has a spam filter built in. 4) iPhoto, iMovie, and iTunes (the Mac version is better than the PC version) 5) keyboard shortcuts that work for many more apps than they do for the PC...

Re:UI

[Backus.Naur]

Ya, its a good point if I want use Word documents I should buy Word.
My point is that people shouldn't expect that Mac applications are easier to use. Clearly, for some ( and posssibly many ) they aren't.
Apple apologetics want people to believe that Apple's application are unarguably easier to use.

As far as the WiFi, well it should be Mac mini vs Sony Vaio.. the Vaio just got better reception. One man's experience.

Re:UI

[soft_guy]

You could buy her Office for Mac, or you could download the free NeoOffice suite. I have Word on my computer at home and I use NeoOffice at work and it deals with Word files pretty well.

Pages is OK if you just need a good, simple word processor and don't care about compatibility with anyone else. My eleven year old daughter uses it to write reports for school. It is fine for that.

If you are getting Word files, you need to use Word for Mac or an equivalent program like NeoOffice.

Re:UI

[Backus.Naur]

I concede on the Pages vs Word. Word is often packaged with Windows ( in MS Works or such ). Attachments.. I should clarify, it was really about me having to dig up 3rd party media viewers, and such. Example, your friend sends you a .wmv movie to watch, it doesn't 'just work'. 1.)Installing Drivers.. I only install only for printers on Windows, but the same case exists for Apple, I had to intall the HP drivers. 2.)Windows are more susceptible, can't argue there. Especially for novice users. On a side note, I have never installed a virus scanner and have never had a virus ( I use symantec's online tool to check ocassionally ). 3.)Thunderbird, Hotmail, etc. Good choices available for PC. Mail is better then Outlook express, no doubt. 4.)iLife is the main reason I can think of to own a Mac, Vista has copied this to some extent and tools like Picasa are becoming more wide spread. 5.)Pretty subtle for a novice users.

Re:UI

[Anonymous Coward]

Christmas she's getting a Dell with Vista. Sir, you are a cheap bastard.

Right on

[virgil_disgr4ce]

Numbers 4 and 5 are right on the mark, as well as Finder refresh and file renaming. Also, keyboard navigation is still pretty half-assed. I managed to customize my MBP to have a semblance of windows functionality (in terms of keyboard nav) but dialogues still crop up with an element that can't be nav'd to. Infuriating. The article correctly pegs OS X as being far too mouse-centric.

It has always bothered me that macs are thought of as THE platform of choice for designers or those in some kind of professional graphic arts/design, because the vast majority of these people have never touched a PC, and thus aren't even aware of the tiny little details they're missing.

In the end, I don't give a shit what OS I'm using as long as it allows me to work faster and more efficiently. I can only pray that Apple realizes that they MUST continue adapting OS X towards "power users," an overstated name for someone who simply bothers to learn how to use their damn OS/computer. They have a great OS that works really, really well for people who have never used computers, and I'm happy about that--I've recommended new macs to many family members who don't need to (or won't) learn shit about their computer. But there's no reason Mac OS can't cater to REAL computer users.

--Tedb0t

Re:Right on

[Skadet]

Nice try.

Numbers 4 and 5 are right on the mark, as well as Finder refresh and file renaming. Also, keyboard navigation is still pretty half-assed.

The hell are you talking about? Enter/Return renames a file. Which leads us to...

I can only pray that Apple realizes that they MUST continue adapting OS X towards "power users," an overstated name for someone who simply bothers to learn how to use their damn OS/computer.

Personally, I use terminal to navigate most directory structures. But beside that point, some keyboard shortcuts are non-obvious, like apple-downarrow to launch a program or open a file (enter/return renames, remember?)

It has always bothered me that macs are thought of as THE platform of choice for designers or those in some kind of professional graphic arts/design, because the vast majority of these people have never touched a PC, and thus aren't even aware of the tiny little details they're missing.

I'm a professional designer that started on a PC and has been on a Mac for a year now. You know what I miss about Windows?

Nothing.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Tombstone-f]

I'd have to say that ever since I started using the Mac the Fullscreen button on Windows really pisses me off. I wish it would work more like the Mac.
I prefer to be able to see all my open windows at a glance and fullscreen mode blocks that. I can see how it might useful on a small screen (like on small laptop screens or older displays) but on larger screens it just hogs up all the screen space.

os x is da man

[Anonymous Coward]

os x rocks

My list

[also-rr]

A while a go I posted my list of things that I didn't like about OSX and I got some good responses that fixed a few.

The good news (for me) is that now Linux on powerbooks is very, very good - not only do all the key things like wireless (with WPA), suspend, sound, 3d acceleration etc work perfectly but with Beryl installed it actually looks far better than OS X. I was sitting in an internet cafe yesterday and people were being awed by OS X... except it wasn't OS X at all. I said almost two years ago that Linux was catching up with OS X for look and feel... well, now it has. Even with Gnome apps mixed into a KDE desktop the behavior (thanks to an awful lot of work by the Kubuntu/Ubuntu guys) is more consistant across applications than anything you will find on OS X or Windows.

Oh, and with MOL installed (so it's one button press to switch to/from full screen OS X almost as fast as on native hardware) there really are no downsides.

Re:My list

[digidave]

Just make sure you run 'gnome-settings-daemon' in your KDE startup session (or run it manually after logging in) or Gnome apps will look beyond terrible.

A Few More Ideas

[miyako]

A few years ago, I got an iBook which was my first mac. I don't really regret getting it, as it certainly did what I need, but now that I'm in the market for a new notebook I'm not really considering apple at all, largely because there are a lot of things in the OS X- especially Aqua- that just really annoy me.
The biggest problem that I see with OS X is that it offers very little in customizability. Aqua feels like it was designed for someone who has never used a computer before. For a lot of people, I'm sure that this simplicity is a good thing, and I won't fault Apple for making something easy to learn. Unfortunately, Apple never seemed to consider that what is easy for a newbie is also woefully inefficient and infuriating for a power user. The best example that I can think of is not having the option to type in a path in the Finder. Certainly it can be done with 3rd party applications, but it seems extremely asinine to not support it by default.

Re:A Few More Ideas

[benbean]

Command-Shift-G - Go to Folder.

Re:A Few More Ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

shift+cmd+G

Re:A Few More Ideas

[jpkunst]

The best example that I can think of is not having the option to type in a path in the Finder. Certainly it can be done with 3rd party applications, but it seems extremely asinine to not support it by default.

That option exists by default: Go -> Go To Folder... in the Finder's menu bar, or type Shift-Command-G.

JP

Re:A Few More Ideas

[Dog-Cow]

"The best example that I can think of is not having the option to type in a path in the Finder. Certainly it can be done with 3rd party applications, but it seems extremely asinine to not support it by default."

Apple+G.

Re:A Few More Ideas

[mac84]

You want to type in a path to navagate to it? how about open folder... ?

Re:A Few More Ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course there is a menu option complete with keyboard shortcut to type a path into the finder. Some power user you are.

Most of these "I'm used to Windows and OS X lacks features" posts are really "I've got years of training on one system and won't spend even 1/10th of that time trying to learn a new one." You didn't become a Windows power user over night. You might have had to learn some things by exploring or by learning from others. Mac OS X is very customizeable and very power user friendly. The methods for tweaking the system are different than on Windows. Most of them predate the same functionality on Windows, so don't ask Apple to change. Be willing to learn and you'll do fine.

Re:A Few More Ideas

[mallardtheduck]

The best example that I can think of is not having the option to type in a path in the Finder.

So what's wrong with the "Go to folder..." option in the "Go" menu, that can also be invoked with Cmd-Shift-G ?

That's right, you didn't see the option right in front of you, so you assumed it didn't exist. This is similar to what I find many about people who dislike the Mac after trying it. The have the attitude "I'll try a Mac, they're easy to use" and without realizing it, they expect it to act just like Windows, because that's what they're used to and Mac's are just sooo easy to use they shouldn't have to learn anything.

Contrast that to the attitude of most first-time Linux users "I'll learn Linux, it'll be a challenge". Of course this leads to the "Its difficult to use, I have to learn it" attitude, but at least they accept that things will be different to Windows.

Re:A Few More Ideas

[miyako]

Actually, I'm prefectly aware of the keyboard shortcut and the option in the menu. My problem is really that I really think that I should have the option of having it right there. It makes it much easier to type paths in, as well as to immediately see where you are in the file system.
I didn't start using OS X because I wanted something easy, I really don't care much about easy, but I do want something that is efficient. There are a lot of things about OS X that seem inefficient. I picked the directory thing off the top of my head, but there are other examples as well. Off the top of my head- why can't I highlight something then middle-click to copy/past; why can't I shade windows? why is it taking until leapord to get virtual desktops?
don't get me wrong, there are some things I like about OS X, but on the whole the system feels more like it's trying to hide stuff from the user so they don't get scared and run away, instead of working toward letting a user work smarter/faster. And, it's also a preference thing too. Some people like OS X, some people like Windows, I have a friend who still loves Amiga, personally, I like Gnome.

Re:A Few More Ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

I 100% agree with the shade, multi-desktop and middle-click paste.
I switched completely from windows to Linux in '96, and thought i'd try OS X
mostly because i preferred it significantly to Windows and i wanted to be able
to run some commercial software that wasn't an option in Linux.

I was a bit annoyed that i actually had to get a haxie for windowshading, even
though OS9 had it natively, but wasn't terrifically surprised that i had to
get a different one that handles multiple desktops, since MacOS and Windows never
really did that anyhow. With Desktop Manager, WindowshadeX and Expose i find a
12" powerbook amazingly usable.

I personally enjoy many desktop environments, WindowMaker/GNUStep, flux/blackbox,
gnome, etc as well as the OS X, and i really don't expect them all to have the
same features and functionality, but it is really easy to get used to the things
that you use all the time.

Now if i could get focus-follows-mouse and the ability to not raise focussed
windows + X11 style paste with the whole OSX gui (which i otherwise rather like)
i would be a happier camper.

Re:A Few More Ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

The best example that I can think of is not having the option to type in a path in the Finder. Certainly it can be done with 3rd party applications, but it seems extremely asinine to not support it by default.

Well, since the "best example you can think of" is demonstrably wrong, will you change your position? I thought not.

Re:A Few More Ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'm prefectly aware of the keyboard shortcut and the option in the menu.

You are so full of shit. This was your "best example", and it was "completely asinine." You had no idea there was a way to do it.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[admdrew]

What makes you think the parent was referring to Windows specifically? My KDE in FC5 *also* has a maximize button.

1 Thing the Authors Should Change

[xneubien]

2. Renaming Isn't Easy. The process of renaming files is highly mouse-centric on the Mac. There's no F2 option (as there is on Windows) that lets you select the file and press F2 to expose the filename-editing mode. The mouse process requires very precisely timed mouse clicks. Anyone who has ever been forced to rename a long list of files under both Windows and Mac operating systems will likely agree that the Windows way is easier. --Michael Cullison I think its actually easier to do this on the mac Select the file and press the "return" key. Only problem with this, if you are used to launching apps in windows with the enter key, you may accidentally rename files while your at it.

Some stuff

[ppolitop]

Generally very well put, but I have an objection with:

10. Accessing Applications.
The Dock offers a great way to show running applications and the programs you launch most often.
But what about those applications you use only once in a while? The way it is now, you can either jam
the Dock so full with program icons it's ridiculous or keep the Dock clean and then open a Finder
window and drill down into the Applications folder to launch lesser-used apps. The previous
generation Mac OS let you configure program launching on the Apple menu. While there are third-party
solutions that give you back a semblance of that functionality, Apple needs to recognize this user need.
(Reader Michael Cullison contributed to this pet peeve.)
The dock allows folders with aliases that act exactly like "start menus" not to mention that the best and
IMHO the intented way of launching those not-so-frequently-used-apps is spotlight... type first few letters
press down arrow and you got it!

Also, I would add a 16th thing that should change. Finder. Please make it better, make it not crash or hang so
easily, on every network drive disconnection.

the doc

You must hate your wife

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone sends her Word files and she does not have Word, why is that the computer's fault?

My friend's 12 year old daughter pretty much taught herself to use Pages.

Do us all a favor and never breed.

Re:You must hate your wife

[Backus.Naur]

It's not the computers fault, but that' like thinking you can speak English in France. Word is the lingua franca.

What? She isn't using emacs or vi? Sheesh

As for you last comments, what can I say, you've just mocked yourself, and shown why legitimate discussion/complaints on Slashdot is a joke.

On a serious note, why do people so defensive about the Mac? I guess when you can't argue a legitimate point, only ad hominem is left.

Re:You must hate your wife

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, I only think angry people like you should breed. The world needs more venomous people.

Re:You must hate your wife

[Trillan]

So buy Word? It sounds like you qualify for the Student/Teacher edition.

Re:You must hate your wife

[Anonymous Coward]

The world needs more venomous people.

Actually it does. There's far too much tolerance for idiocy like that demonstrated by the OP and his alleged wife. Anyone planning on buying a Dell with Vista, and thinks it's a thoughtful Xmas gift, needs mental therapy. I know hardcore Windoze folks who want nothing to do with Vista.

Re:You must hate your wife

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who gets angry about a computing platform needs therapy, seriously.

Re:You must hate your wife

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he qualifies for the complementary "MS Shill" edition of Word.

Nitpicks

[Bastian]

What I find most striking about these is that they're all total nitpicks. Even they seem to recognize it.

That, and they seem to have forgotten some far worse problems with OS X. For example, opening a save or open panel in an app requires waiting for external hard drives to spin up. It seems to poll every mounted volume on the computer ahead of time, whether or not I'm actually going to tunnel into that volume when I'm working with the save panel. On days when the network at work is being slow, this is particularly annoying - it's not uncommon for me to end up waiting well over 30 seconds for a save panel to appear.

And if you want to see a *real* example of inconsistent user interface on OS X, click the white pill on a Finder window and use it for a while. Notice how the Finder suddenly doesn't behave anything like the way it used to when you have the menu bar hidden?

Re:Nitpicks

[jo_ham]

I'll admit that gripe gets me too. I work on a system that has anywhere up to 9 firewire drives attached to it, not to mention network drives.

Opening a save window can be an exercise in patience.

Re:Nitpicks

[foo12]

And if you want to see a *real* example of inconsistent user interface on OS X, click the white pill on a Finder window and use it for a while. Notice how the Finder suddenly doesn't behave anything like the way it used to when you have the menu bar hidden?

You're switching the Finder over to "spacial" mode -- it behaves more like the Mac OS 9 Finder in that mode.

Must fix a Bluetooth headset flaw

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an ibook G4 bought an year ago.
I have a bluetooth headset and i use it for voip calls, it's very esay to use with mac compared to widcomm drivers in xp.
However, every BT headset when turned on tries to connect to two devices: the first that has paired with and, if it fails, the last device it was connected to.
Since i take care of pairing after the mobile phones, my iBook isn't the first one, but often is the last one, for the headset, to be connected to the headset.

Since the BT is always on on my iBook because i use other devices, every time i turn on my headset it connects to the iBook, but isn't disconnected after few seconds.
Worse, if i use an app that has bt headset as default mic/headset (skype, iChat, X-lite), it hangs and freezes as soon as it tries to use the BT headset.

If i turn off BT on my iBook before turning on the headset, the first connection attempt fails and then evry software works fine with it.

I'm sure the problem is in the BT headset management on OSX, because i tested it with 3 different BT headsets (nokia, plantronics, motorola) with both BT v.1.1 and 1.2.

It's very boring turn off BT everytime i have to use a simple headset.

cla

Fix Spotlight?

[b0s0z0ku]

Please, pretty please, make it work with network shares without dicking around with root's crontab and writing watchdog scripts. Also, remove the moronic distinction between mounting a share via the base BSD system and via Finder (only the latter will index via Spotlight at all!). This needs to be a unified OS, not something vaguely pretending to be OS 9 riding on top of BSD.

Cheers,
-b.

Re:Fix Spotlight?

[yabos]

Leopard allows you to search network mounted volumes.

One more

[Bastian]

2 mouse buttons on the notebooks, people! Physical buttons! Three would be even better!

I get the impression that the folks in Cupertino have never tried to use an X11 app with a one-button mouse. God damn that's a painful experience.

Re:One more

[diamondsw]

I must say, I never understood why Windows/Linux users were so bent out of shape about multiple button mice. Then I tried to use them (in Parallels) without one. Ugh! Hidden options everywhere, some things cannot be done unless you use right-click etc.

The vast majority of users - even today - do not understand the difference between left and right clicking. Furthermore, contextual menus have been abused horribly on Windows (less so on Linux) to the point where they are the ONLY way to get at common commands - no corresponding menu bar options or buttons at all a lot of the time. This KILLS being able to discover functionality without looking it up in help, or randomly clicking things until you "get it right", which does nothing to help you in the next app.

The single button on the Mac prevents developers from pulling this kind of crap, because they physically can't assume a second button.

Meanwhile, since I've been using a Thinkpad loaded in Parallels, I actually find it easier to use the two-finger click to "right-click" thank to actually right-click on my USB mouse. Go figure.

Re:One more

[twotommylong]

ah yes, X11 and 3270 support are not well integrated into the Mac physical interface (tn3270 sucks for those who have true 327x terminals). At least you can go buy a $15 mouse to fix your problems. Every try to buy a 327x USB keyboard? I wish my company would have converted all it's green screen development to a 'modern' computing environment such as X11.... ;-)

Honestly... If there is one thing the mac 'religon' takes seriously is the 'simple' pointing device, and building that into their hardware platform. The UI supports multi-button mice, but the core of the UI is focus on making the 'one button' interface for 'rest of us'.

For the what, million people in the world that 'require' X11 functionality on a mac laptop, buying a $15 mouse is a pretty simple workaround.

Re:One more

[Bastian]

The problem isn't actually right-clicking. Right click is easy to get to on a Mac, either with the two-finger click (which isn't available on my computer) or with option-click.

The problem is that a lot of X11 apps require a THIRD mouse button. On a two-button mouse you can at least click both buttons to simulate a third one. The X11 server for OS X will also allow you to option-click to simulate a third button click.

But then, let's suppose you're using an image editing program that makes liberal use of combining modifier keys with left clicks in order to access extra functionality. There's no way you can use this stuff on a Mac with a one-button mouse because option-left click isn't option-left click, it's middle click.

Even more annoying is the #$@#% Mighty Mouse, which has buttons out the wazoo but was designed in such a boneheaded way that it's no different from a one-button mouse from the perspective of someone who uses UNIX apps on their Mac. There's no way to left and right click at the same time, and none of the additional buttons register as a third mouse button to the operating system.

I realize that having only one mouse button is nice from various high-and-lofty perspectives, but there at least needs to be the option to buy a MacBook with more than one mouse button for those of us who really do need it for our day-to-day work. I imagine that just that would make a lot of Unix geeks a lot more willing to move over to the Mac. Right now I have a Powerbook and for the most part I love it, but it's supreme pain in the ass that I have to carry a mouse everywhere I go to be able to do some tasks.

Re:One more

[tdhurst]

OH hell yeah! Apple should DEFINITELY abandon their simplistic one-button scheme to satisfy the tens of people using X11.

Re:One more

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of users - even today - do not understand the difference between left and right clicking.

You pulled that from your ass. Seriously, as an end user support person who works with technology illiterate lawyers and accountants all day long I can say this is at best an anecdote on your part. As you've said elsewhere, there are simply tasks that cannot be done without right clicking.

Re:One more

[tetsuo29]

I'm so sick of hearing about the need for a two button mouse or trackpad. Control + click is NOT hard. It's easy. It accomplishes the same damn thing that having a right mouse button does. And, it does it without confusing users who will never understand what the right mouse button on a PC does. Oh, and on newer iBooks, PowerBooks, MacBooks, & MacBook Pros that support gestures, you can configure the trackpad to interpret two fingers on the pad + a click as a right click. And, for the 1000th time, if you simply plug in a mouse with multiple buttons, OS X will instantly recognize them and they will work as expected. Get over it.

I like the having a single mouse button on my Macs. I spend 8 hours a day in front of a Windows PC with a two button scroll mouse and then I go home to a MacBook Pro in the evenings with it's single button trackpad. When I'm at work, I right click and use the scroll wheel. When I'm at home, I control+click and use PageUp/PageDown (or these days use the two finger trackpad gesture). I go back and forth between these two configurations and I don't even think about it. It's not that hard- really.

Re:One more

[SideshowBob]

Rest two fingers on the track pad, and then click the button, that's equivalent to a right click.

Re:One more

[mindbooger]

> Even more annoying is the #$@#% Mighty Mouse, which has buttons out the wazoo but was designed in such a boneheaded way that it's no different from a one-button mouse from the perspective of someone who uses UNIX apps on their Mac. There's no way to left and right click at the same time, and none of the additional buttons register as a third mouse button to the operating system.

Click by pressing on the scroll ball. That's your middle mouse button.

navigating OS X by keyboard :: #1 problem

[bartlettdmoore]

Apple continues to drop the ball on the keyboard issue. Many dialog boxes require mouse input when a simple 'arrow over then press enter or spacebar' would be most sensible. What's worse is that some of OS X's dialog boxes respond to keyboard input while others don't--very frustrating! Windows got this right way early (I'm talking version 3 or earlier) and their key bindings have pretty much remained constant (and thus predictable) since. I love the Mac OS, but this drives me--and other power users--crazy! Its time for Apple to get on board with the keys on the keyboard. I'm appalled that the Computerworld article missed this flagrent impediment to using OS X to get things done...

Re:navigating OS X by keyboard :: #1 problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You can switch between buttons in dialog boxes with the tab button as of 10.4 (Tiger) in any well-implemented application, even if it was built before 10.4 existed.

And if you really don't like this, you can disable it in the "Keyboard Shortcuts" tab of the Keyboard & Mouse section of System Preferences.

How soon Apple forgets its past...

[Old Man Kensey]

Back in the day, there was one gotta-have-it Mac control panel: SuperClock, which let you monkey with the time and date display in the menu bar. I had mine set up to display the time/date in dd-MMM-YYYY HH:mm format. For System 7.5, a large part of the update from 7.0/7.1 was the addition of a whole bundle of third-party extensions that had come to be recognized as essential, and SuperClock was at or near the top of that list.

Somewhere, the SuperClock author is crying his eyes out.

Re:How soon Apple forgets its past...

[gordgekko]

Super Clock was kick ass....

Better than Vista?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vista is so many light years ahead of OSX it's funny to think about. XP perhaps, but Vista no way.

Re:Better than Vista?

[gleffler]

Vista is XP with an ugly skin and a poor hack of Spotlight. Oh, and also a poor hack of Expose.

OS X isn't the most perfect OS in the world, but it sure is a lot better than Vista, because MS is playing a neverending game of catch-up.

What about combo boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about combo boxes? Dammit they should take tab focus! Most annoying thing in OS X IMHO

Re:What about combo boxes?

[wumpus188]

System Preferences -> Keyboard&Mouse -> Keyboard shortcuts -> Full keyboard access -> All controls

Re:What about combo boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up, this is the most useful tip ever for windows users moving to mac.

"Renaming Isn't Easy."

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFA:

2. Renaming Isn't Easy. The process of renaming files is highly mouse-centric on the Mac. There's no F2 option (as there is on Windows) that lets you select the file and press F2 to expose the filename-editing mode. The mouse process requires very precisely timed mouse clicks. Anyone who has ever been forced to rename a long list of files under both Windows and Mac operating systems will likely agree that the Windows way is easier. --Michael Cullison

Well, Mr Cullison, how about selecting the file with the arrow keys, hitting Enter, typing in the new name, and hitting Enter again?

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[ioErr]

It's not a maximize button at all, it's a "zoom" button. And exactly how the button changes the window's size is at the discretion of the Application itself rather than the OS. So yes, since changing behaviour could break existing Applications it is "hard", though of course far from impossible.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[TeacherOfHeroes]

That is part of my point as well. I'm writing this in Gnome/Ubuntu. I have three window managers installed on this machine (KWin, Metacity, and Beryl), and all of them behave in the same way. I suspect that I could easily apt-get a few more that also behaved the same way. Windows also behaves the same way. Almost everything behaves in that same way. I realize that Apple likes to be different, but sometimes it would be nice if they at least included the option for the rest of us to do things the way that we're used to doing them. I know, I know, I have no right to demand anything from them. Thing is, Apple's big push now seems to be in winning converts from other operating systems. While I wouldn't hold some unusual default settings against them (I may very well like some of the different ways of doing things), I would very much like to have at least the option of changing things a bit.

the worst is the "pro-apps"

[bloosqr]

All the apple "pro apps" aka logic / aperture look like winamp knock offs with black backgrounds tiny grey unreadable fonts .. They are *really* terrible. These are also made by apple.. why not use a nice clean interface like all their normal apps?

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[mmkkbb]

Hold option while you click the zoom button, and the window goes up to full screen.

mostly whining.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to comment on some of the points:
First off, "Finder" does suck. It's an abomination. FTFF.

15. Date display in the menu can be customized through the "International" > "Formats" pref pane.

14. Widgets can be placed on the "Desktop" by enabling 'devmode'

11. Windows in OS X - current OS X is idiotic. System 9 made sense - drag by any edge, resize by the corner, double-click the menubar to "windowshade" in place - once to peek behind a window, and again, without moving the mouse to put put the window back. Now, most windows can only be moved by the menubar - if you have a screen full of overlapping windows, all of the "moveable" regions are clustered at the top of the screen where they are most likely to overlap. Double-clicking a menubar minimizes windows to the "Dock", but then you have to move the mouse all the way there to put it back. idiotic all around.

10. Stick a folder of app aliases in the "Dock" like everyone is already doing to access your second tier apps.

9. My "delete" key on my standard Mac keyboard (Canadian layout) deletes right so what's the problem? For Cocoa apps, ctrl-d works too.

meh, most of the rest sounds like whining from the author of the article.

Re:mostly whining.

[soft_guy]

11. Windows in OS X - current OS X is idiotic. System 9 made sense - drag by any edge, resize by the corner, double-click the menubar to "windowshade" in place - once to peek behind a window, and again, without moving the mouse to put put the window back. Now, most windows can only be moved by the menubar - if you have a screen full of overlapping windows, all of the "moveable" regions are clustered at the top of the screen where they are most likely to overlap. Double-clicking a menubar minimizes windows to the "Dock", but then you have to move the mouse all the way there to put it back. idiotic all around. I think you mean "Title bar", not "Menu bar". The menu bar is at the top of the screen. The Title bar contains the title of the window - and it doesn't contain pull down menus (although in many apps you can get a popup menu by command clicking the title of the window). You move a window by dragging its title bar.

Some of these are just ignorant...

[Senjutsu]

I guess this specific one is "reader-contributed", but it's still increadibly daft:

2. Renaming Isn't Easy. The process of renaming files is highly mouse-centric on the Mac. There's no F2 option (as there is on Windows) that lets you select the file and press F2 to expose the filename-editing mode. The mouse process requires very precisely timed mouse clicks. Anyone who has ever been forced to rename a long list of files under both Windows and Mac operating systems will likely agree that the Windows way is easier. --Michael Cullison

Hey Mike - arrow key until the file you want to rename is hilighted - and push enter. Wooooooo, scary hard.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[Qzukk]

and push enter

Coming from windows or linux, I'd never have thought to try this.

If Enter renames files, how do you open a file without the mouse?

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[trudyscousin]

If Enter renames files, how do you open a file without the mouse?

Command-O. (i.e., the key with the cloverleaf and Apple symbol)

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[Xugumad]

*taptaptap* Hey, never knew that. Although, personally, I'd have expected enter to load the file...

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[fishbot]

I agree that it is very easy to rename files. Unfortunately, people coming from Windows or Linux or other non-Mac backgrounds will likely navigate with cursors, press enter, then get annoyed that the application didn't launch. option-down arrow is not an intuitive way to launch something with the keyboard, and renaming is not something that is done often enough that it deserves the prestige of being assigned the enter key; the most likely key to be hit if the user wants (what they consider to be) the default action - launching.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[rthille]

Command-O
If you read the menus, they show you what the command key equivalents are.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[the phantom]

Command-O or Command-DownArrow.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[Bastian]

I do a lot of training Windows users to use OS X at my job.

I've discovered that the primary roadblock for most people is that they assume that if you can't do it the same way you do on Windows, then there's no way to do it.

This is as much a problem for skilled users such as developers and administrators as it is for folks who can barely operate a mouse.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[forkazoo]

and push enter

Coming from windows or linux, I'd never have thought to try this.

If Enter renames files, how do you open a file without the mouse?

cmd-O, or cmd-down

I prefer cmd-down because it is actually shockingly logical. In Finder... cmd-left and cmd-right let you go "back" and "forward" in the history. cmd-up and cmd-down allow you to navigate up and down in the hierarchy. Up takes you to the parent folder of the current folder, so logically down drills down into whatever is selected.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[carpe_noctem]

Sorry, I have to object, as the renaming thing really bugs me on the Mac, too. "Enter" is the "go" key, as far as most people are concerned. It's big, and makes a satisfying "chunk" when you press it. In Explorer, pressing "enter" on a file opens it, which is what the natural behavior should be. Renaming the file instead is really strange, and it results in lots of novice users accidentally renaming their hard drive to "aaaaasssdf" and so on.

If anything, option+enter or something should rename, but I'm a staunch believer that this design flaw should be fixed in Finder.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[SunBug]

cmd-down

in the finder, cmd-up goes up a level, and cmd-down goes down into the folder/app.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[Anonymous Coward]

Very intuitive. So do you type ctrl^wcommand-O to go to a website/url in safari?

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[Moofie]

"option-down arrow is not an intuitive way"

But "Command-O" (I Command you to Open the file) seems at least as intuitive as F2 to, uh, Fix the 2ile name.

And if you come from a UNIX background, what are you doing dinking around in the Finder? Terminal.app is your friend.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[fishbot]

But "Command-O" (I Command you to Open the file) seems at least as intuitive as F2 to, uh, Fix the 2ile name. And if you come from a UNIX background, what are you doing dinking around in the Finder? Terminal.app is your friend.

I never said F2 was a good keyboard shortcut. My point was that the enter key is an odd thing to bind to 'rename'. If you were in the terminal and typed a command, pressed enter, and realised that enter had been bound to 'edit the current command' instead of running it, would you think "Oh well, it doesn't matter, I'll just learn a new keyboard shortcut for this common function"? You'd probably just stop using that shell, and find one that isn't so stupid.

Similarly (going back to the UI), if you select something in a list with the up and down keys, or tab to a particular button, you'd expect to press enter to make it 'do' whatever it does. If enter isn't used as the 'make it so' button, then it'll most likely confuse folk. Having hung about on a variety of forums, the question "how to launch apps with keyboard?" comes up more than perhaps it should, and the response "press command-down or use the mouse" isn't generally received with "oh, that makes sense" :)

And if you come from a UNIX background, what are you doing dinking around in the Finder? Terminal.app is your friend.

I also never said that I use the finder to do stuff. If I have a lot of renaming to do I tend to use a sh one-liner (or perl if it's something non-noddy).

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[Moofie]

You did catch the part where "Command-O" (which is a pretty good mnemonic for "Open this item") also works, right?

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[fishbot]

You did catch the part where "Command-O" (which is a pretty good mnemonic for "Open this item") also works, right?

erm, yeah. You're still missing the point. The other replies to the parent of this thread prove my point; people expect enter to be the 'do whatever it is you do' button. Having two different _other_ shortcut keys
to do that, and binding enter to rename, doesn't make sense to folk. Why not make it 3? how about command-R for "I command you to Run"?

The point is that it doesn't matter how many non-enter-key shortcuts there are, people are liable to select, and press enter. When enter doesn't do what they want, they'll be frustrated. If the user feels frustration just trying to launch an app, "fixing" it by pointing them to the myriad _other_ ways that they could have done it doesn't help.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as UI is concerned, the good behavior is not "[return] launches the application". As you say, the [return] key is big and the possibility it is hit accidentally (which forces you to wait for the app to finish launching to quit or to force quit the app during the launch) is high. When you have behaviors that may be bad to your system or may force user to wait because you hit a key accidentally, that's bad. The proper behavior is to use a modifier key to prevent accidental hits:
[cmd]-[delete], instead of just [delete]
[cmd]-o, instead of return
[cmd]-p for printing

What you said it "should be" is just your own preference because of your own habit after using Windows for a long time. Don't expect Mac OS X (or any other OS) to behave like Windows when it's Windows that is a crappy copy of Mac GUI.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[Cro Magnon]

I agree! That was one of my gripes about OSX. Enter seems like a normal way to open a file. Until reading this story, I never thought of using Command-O. Yes, it's a bit more "intuitive" than using F2 for rename, but nowhere near as intuitive as using Enter to open.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[noidentity]

Heh, no shit. I guess item number 2 is really "Keyboard shortcuts aren't easy enough for me to locate/I don't have enough motivation to look them up".

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[poot_rootbeer]

Hey Mike - arrow key until the file you want to rename is hilighted - and push enter. Wooooooo, scary hard.

That's a design WTF in itself.

Enter is a primary action key, has been since people were using VT100 terminals. When you press Enter in the context of some interface resource, it should perform the primary action associated with that resource: navigate into a folder. Open a document. Launch a program.

Instead it allows the user to modify the resource name? That's not a primary action!

Honestly, I can't blame Mike for not knowing about this. It's not like the "Rename" item in Finder's menus mentions that Enter is a hotkey for that action. Actually, it's not like the Finder menus even have a "Rename" item.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[pruss]

Yes, this works but it is counterintuitive (F2 isn't intuitive, except maybe to Excel users, btu it also isn't counterintuitive). One would expect ENTER on a file to launch the file, ENTER being a standard key for execute, confirm, do, etc.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[spitzak]

I would agree. I never knew Return had something to do with renaming, and I also certainly expected it to open the file or otherwise act like double-click (and I never use Windows or a Linux finder, so this is completely without preconcieved notions of how these should work).

Certainly "F2" is not intuitive. When I have to use Windows I just keep clicking on the filename until I get the magic point that makes it go into text-editing mode. I also did this on the Mac.

The best solution is probably to have Return act like double-click, which would match a lot of other GUI. This probably means it opens it, though maybe it means that double-click renames files? Certainly F2 is stupid (I am also annoyed at how many people think F4 is a logical thing to close windows with). But how about a command+letter such as 'r' or 'n' or something that might be deduced from "rename"?

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[Penguin Programmer]

Or, open up a terminal and use mv or rename. There's no reason to dick around with the mouse to rename files.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The best solution is probably to have Return act like double-click, which would match a lot of other GUI. This probably means it opens it, though maybe it means that double-click renames files?

Most users will never, ever launch a file using keyboard navigation. Those that do, will probably want to use this feature relatively rarely. That said, it makes no sense to make this the easiest thing to do. Have you ever renamed 50 files by hand. I have, and it is a pain in the ass. The last thing you want to do is use the mouse. With OS X it is about as fast and easy as possible. you hit enter, type the name and enter again, then the down arrow to go to the next one. This is not that uncommon of a task for some users. When was the last time you ever heard of someone wanting to use the keyboard to consecutively and repetitively launch 50 applications? When was the last time you launched an application in the currently open Finder or Explorer window using the keyboard?

I think Apple is 100% right on this one. Make the common, repetitive tasks easy. Make the uncommon tasks slightly harder. If I want to launch an application 50% of the time I'm using the mouse. 30% of the time I'm using the keyboard and spotlight is faster than selecting the application using the finder. The rest of the time I'm using the CLI.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[Xarius]

That doesn't attempt to execute the file?

(sorry, never used mac OS)

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[pesc]

Coming from windows or linux, I'd never have thought to try this.

You could open the Help window and search for "rename file" and learnt the shortcut.

But coming from windows or linux, you probably wouldn't have thought about that either! ;-)

The help texts are actually very useful on OS X.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an actual problem with OS X. Finder will occasionally have focus when I think the front window has it, and I can select and duplicate and rename things without being able to see what is happening. Then I have to go to the Desktop to see what I've done.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[godawful]

no, i hit cmd control space (to bring up quicksilver) and enter the address i wish to go to, or a few letters of the bookmark.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[SuperMog2002]

I launch apps by double clicking files all the time. I'm one of those folks who, when I want to view/edit a file, I do so by opening ~/Documents or My Documents in Finder/Explorer and double clicking the file itself rather than opening the app and using its own UI for opening. That being said, I'm perfectly fine with both using enter to open files on Windows and command-down on the Mac. Both seem intuitive to me, so it's just an issue of switching back and forth. Use both OSes estensively and you get used to switching pretty quickly.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[stewbacca]

Windows users are like ugly Americans. Everyone should speak English in their world...

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I launch apps by double clicking files all the time.

I think you misread what I wrote. I was arguing that action was common with a mouse (clicking). I was arguing that launching apps via the keyboard (not CLI) is uncommon.

That being said, I'm perfectly fine with both using enter to open files on Windows and command-down on the Mac. Both seem intuitive to me, so it's just an issue of switching back and forth.

Have you ever done this? Do you do it often. Do you do it over and over and over again, so that it justifies making this behavior easy at the expense of making a common activity hard?

A common task is renaming files, lots of files. On the mac this is much easier. It is one of those tasks that is ideal for keyboard use. Not using the CLI, but using the finder you select the first file, hit enter, type the name, and hit enter again. Then you use the arrow keys to move to the next file, never touching a mouse.

If you try to do the same thing on Windows, you have to use the F2 key instead of the enter key or you will be opening the files instead of renaming them. Normally, this change would be no big deal, but if you're doing it over and over for a large number of files moving your hand out of place every time is really annoying. Since I have never, ever, that I recall opened a file in windows by selecting it and hitting enter, it seems this common combination could be better assigned.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[Senjutsu]

Yes, this works but it is counterintuitive (F2 isn't intuitive, except maybe to Excel users, btu it also isn't counterintuitive). One would expect ENTER on a file to launch the file, ENTER being a standard key for execute, confirm, do, etc.

It's neither intuitive nor counter-intuitive; it's merely a design decision. People with a Windows background might expect enter to open the file, but the millions of people with years of experience with Macs would find it horribly counter to their trained expectations. Intuitive != Windows-esque, especially when Apple has a large long-term customer base with their own set of expectations.

Personally I think F2 is a perverse renaming choice and much prefer enter/return, but that's purely a function of trained background rather than "intuitiveness".

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[5plicer]

My personal preference is to use Command-DownArrow. Also, in the Finder, use Command-UpArrow to navigate up a directory.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[axp_bofh]

command-down arrow also works This is basic Finder navigation - command-up arrow moves you up, command-down arrow moves down into the selected folder. If what you've got selected is an application, it opens it. It worked about the same in System 6.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[GaryPatterson]

Design flaw? You mean the same behaviour that's existed since 1984, unchanged and consistent across all OS revisions?

Sounds less like a design flaw and more like personal preferences. There are reasons that command-O is used instead of the enter key (more common action is renaming rather than launching) and I find Windows to be outside what I'd expect based on how people use Windows Explorer.

(It took someone at work to tell me that F2 goes to rename files. F2? Who thought that was obvious?)

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[ryanw]

That doesn't attempt to execute the file?

Pressing ENTER in finder is to rename a file. To execute something or open something press CMD+DOWN ARROW to open something. CMD+UP ARROW to go up a directory.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[SideshowBob]

Actually it's very thoughtfully designed. The enter key is easier to hit accidentally, so it's appropriate that it do the least intrusive/easiest to undo action. If you hit enter, you start a rename of a file. Hitting enter again, or hitting escape, will end the rename. And if you somehow change the name, you can undo (command-Z). Launching an app is much more disruptive: it's a context switch, there will likely be a delay as you wait for the app to load itself and become ready to accept the first even (likely a quit keyboard command -- command-Q or alt-F4, oh yeah that's intuitive)

On the Mac at least, no app or window outside of a modal dialog has a single 'primary action'. So that's kind of a red herring.

And I would strongly argue that hitting enter in a VT100 interface always 'does the primary action'. I've seen terminal interfaces where enter navigates among the fields of a form, and the 'primary action' was a function key. In fact that's very common.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[macshit]

You did catch the part where "Command-O" (which is a pretty good mnemonic for "Open this item") also works, right?

Geez, of course he got that.

But command-O, while it's not the worst binding for open, is not exactly the best either. People expect the big obvious return key to do that, because it's just, well, obvious (in a huge number of contexts, return basically means "activate"/"run"), as well as being rather more convenient than command-O.

"Rename" is an occasional comand that really doesn't deserve the biggest most convenient key on the keyboard, especially one whose traditional meaning is something different.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[Senjutsu]

On the other hand, command-O in every application means "open something". Why have the Finder's version of an "open something" accelerator be enter instead? I prefer the pervasive consistency.

Re:Some of these are just ignorant...

[toddestan]

Design flaw? You mean the same behaviour that's existed since 1984, unchanged and consistent across all OS revisions?

Just because it's consistent with itself doesn't mean it isn't flawed, though you could certainly make an argument against changing it just because it would definently annoy some people.

(It took someone at work to tell me that F2 goes to rename files. F2? Who thought that was obvious?)

I'm pretty sure that in earlier versions of Windows, the keyboard shortcut was listed in the File (or Edit?) menu so that users who had to hit the Rename option more than a couple of times would figure it out. Now, in XP atleast it seems that the is helpful hint is missing from the File menu, so only us old timers know it anymore.

At least it's not "my OS is better than yours."

[cyberworm]

I do agree with their point about . Laptop Screen Dimming

Everything else though seems kinda nitpicky. For example, you're going to complain about three different applications looking different? I don't know if it's intentional or not, but I think it's a little better that way. For some it could be that it's easier to spot "on the fly" when switching through applications quickly. I couldn't honestly tell you in that comparison though.. I use Safari, Thunderbird, and iTunes. :P

As far as finding applications and working the dock.... How lazy do you have to be to press shift option A to pull up the applicaions folder and find that rarely used app. The dock was never meant to be cluttered up with every application for you to launch. It was meant for the few apps that you use all the time. I don't recall the exact figure, but I think most of us use around the same 5-6 apps all the time.

Printer installation problems (especially compared to windows)? That's a laugh. I've had a couple of SMALL problems with printers from time to time (jobs stopping or funky drivers) why the jobs stopped, sometimes is a mystery (that's the story of my life though... printers do indeed hate me). Really the only time I've had install problems with a printer, was with HP devices, that you have to dig down through /Library and purge the HP drivers that come pre-installed and install new ones from HP. Can hardly blame Apple (or microsoft) for bad drivers.

As far as Dynamic finder refresh, it's always worked fine for me on local files. Stuff stored across the network, in AFS networked mounts are a different story, but even then it has never really been a problem.

While I think the spirit of this article is well thought out, I think that their usage practices and knowledge of how to operate a mac are a bit lacking.

Re:At least it's not "my OS is better than yours."

[GraZZ]

They've already added an option to control the screen dimming to the redesigned Energy Saver preference panal in the Leopard preview. Scratch this one.

Re:At least it's not "my OS is better than yours."

[cyberworm]

Thank god. My speed reading isn't so great.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[morgan_greywolf]

What makes you think the parent was referring to Windows specifically? My KDE in FC5 *also* has a maximize button.

As does GNOME on Ubuntu, XFCE on Xubuntu, etc. I'm pretty sure blackbox also has one.

We call it experts disease.

[LWATCDR]

You don't know how it works because it doesn't work like what you know.

I am not a Mac user but I see this all the time. I caught myself feeling the same way when I had to learn Linux. Why does it use ls instead of dir. Why doesn't it use the same switches as windows/dos.

Nothing except for your speed issues are problems with Mac OS/X. The issue is you haven't learned it.

Am I the only one to think...

[KDR_11k]

that Apple's codenames for the OS X versions sound like a German tank company's vehicle list? I mean, Leopard right after Tiger?

This is the 21st century, not 1985

[yelvington]

My biggest single Mac UI complaint is this: Application menus belong with the application. Not at the top of the physical screen.

Apple's failure to recognize this is simple arrogance. A design decision that was made for a 1985 single-tasking system with a 9-inch monochrome display just doesn't make sense in the 21st century. I have two monitors, including a 21-inch widescreen display. All too often I find the menubar for the application to be inconveniently distant from what I'm doing. I shouldn't have to rev up my mouse like a toy race car.

This should have been fixed with the jump to OS X.

I actually find the ugly X.11 ports to be easier to use in such situations.

The system is actually more app-centric and less task-centric than Windows. To create a document (of any type) I have to first dig around in sucky Finder to find the app, then create the document, then navigate using a poorly designed popup file chooser to locate the project folder where I want to save the file. On Windows, I just right-click on the Desktop or in Explorer to create the empty file exactly where I want it, then double-click to open it.

Other gripes: Finder, Mail.app and iPhoto are primitive relative to their Linux and Windows counterparts. Not having a functional right mouse button on the Macbook Pro is crippling. The filesystem layout is braindamaged. The Unix tools are only half-assed installed.

On the whole, it still beats Windows hands down. Buying anything from Microsoft is like buying a suit of clothing, then discovering the next day that one pants leg is sewed on inside-out, the zipper is in the back, and the jacket has three arms, and if you don't immediately acquire and install 39 upgrades, a horde of pickpockets will steal your wallet and your car keys.

Re:This is the 21st century, not 1985

[GigsVT]

Having the menus at the top of the screen is good from a UI theory standpoint. The 5 easiest places to click are the 4 corners and under your current mouse position. The second most easy places to click are anywhere along the edges of the screen.

Re:This is the 21st century, not 1985

[Thrudheim]

Arrogance? Please, it's Fitt's Law at work.

What's so hard about using two fingers on the MacBook Pro track pad for a right click? Certainly, it's not crippling. Easier on the hands actually.

Re:This is the 21st century, not 1985

[soft_guy]

I couldn't disagree with you more. The reason why Windows didn't do this to begin with is because Apple had a patent on it.

The reason why it it needs to be there is to make it quick/easy to navigate to a pull down menu. Apple's pull down menus are much more efficient to use than the ones in Windows. There is a ton of time and motion studies that prove this.

If they had gotten rid of the menu bar being the way it is, then I and a lot of other people would have found some other OS to use, or just refused to upgrade from MacOS 9. And probably written angry letters to Apple. And maybe picketted in front of their headquarters. And WE were the ones keeping them in business during those dark days- not you and your gauche lot.

Re:This is the 21st century, not 1985

[flynn_nrg]

I don't use iPhoto and, coming from a BSD background, don't care that much about Finder, but I was surprised about your comment regarding Mail.app. Mail comes from the NextSTEP days, and IMHO is a very nice mail program. I wasn't aware that Microsoft bundled a decent mail app with Windows.

So, what do you dislike about Mail? I've used Sylpheed on BSD for years and briefly used GNUMail (a Mail.app clone). I never liked Thunderbird and I have to use Outlook at work and it sucks ass. Mail is very nice once you get used to it, has a decent spam filter and threading options and solid IMAP support (I store my mail on a NetBSD box running Dovecot). What more do you need?

Re:This is the 21st century, not 1985

[yelvington]

I have eight or nine applications open at once, spread out across two widescreen monitors. And like it or not, that's becoming a fairly common configuration where Macbooks are used in offices.

It's an annoyance when the menu related to the thing I'm doing is several thousand pixels away and possibly on a different display screen. UI theories and studies may say otherwise, but those theoreticians and studies must have been using a 9-inch monitor.

I never much cared for the NeXT's convention of popup menus, but they were way better for big screens and multiheaded displays.

Re:This is the 21st century, not 1985

[GigsVT]

You are right, the UI rules change when the circumstances change. I doubt much research has been done into the UI implications of multiple monitor setups. Most likely they just "get it working" and are happy with that.

Two applications open simultanteously

[pubjames]

I want to be able two have two applications running "in the foreground" simultaneously.

What do I mean? Well, I have two big monitors and often work with several applications at once, for instance, Photoshop and Flash or Photoshop and Final Cut Pro. I would like to be able to run them side by side, simultaneously, not have just the one in the "foreground" open.

The problems at the moment are that it is very fiddly to position palettes etc between two applications so they do not overlap, lots of the palette windows disappear when when an application is not in the foreground, and there are lots of other petty annoyances.

Re:Two applications open simultanteously

[hawaiian717]

That may work for mouse driven apps like you mention, but what about text? Suppose I have a web page with a form open in Firefox on one monitor and a Word document open in another. If they're both running in the foreground, which gets my input?

I do see your point about having palette windows disappear when an application is not in the foreground. It may make sense on a single screen with overlapping windows, but not if you have multiple screens, or a large enough screen where the windows don't overlap. I'm not sure if it's a system thing that is making the palettes disappear or an application thing, but it ought to be a user-selectable preference since this might still be an issue for people with a single smaller screen (such as 15" MacBook Pros).

Re:Two applications open simultanteously

[spitzak]

Your text input question is silly. What happens if you have two documents open in the *same* application? There is no problem typing into one or the other. Same thing here, if there is some way for two applications to be "active" at the same time, then you click on the windows and nothing happens other than that the text input goes to one or the other. Shortcuts would go to the menubar for the window getting text input.

Re:Two applications open simultanteously

[ProfessionalCookie]

I've sent feedback to apple about multiple-focus points. It's especially useful for those of us who what to use alternate hardware interfaces or two mice.

Re:Two applications open simultanteously

[not-enough-info]

I understand your pain with the palettes disappearing. This doesn't really seem like a app "foreground" problem though, more of a "there should be an option to keep non-fore palettes from disappearing" problem. Certainly, many activities require that only one app be in the foreground. (i.e. short cut keys: any guess as to what cmd-I will do when you have multiple "foreground" apps?).

If basic window placement is a problem, you can always grab and move "background" windows (and manipulate their control widgets) by holding the command key.

Re:Two applications open simultanteously

[Siker]

The problems at the moment are that it is very fiddly to position palettes etc between two applications so they do not overlap, lots of the palette windows disappear when when an application is not in the foreground, and there are lots of other petty annoyances.

It's very important to not make a palette overlap an invisible palette! God, think about the feelings of the windows, even if they can't be seen.

Re:Two applications open simultanteously

[Anonymous Coward]

Your text input question is silly. What happens if you have two documents open in the *same* application? There is no problem typing into one or the other.

The question is not at all silly. Being the active application and having the focus are synonymous in OSX, and you're asking for this paradigm to be broken. I posit that a better alternative would be to have an option in the application to show those palette windows even when in the background. But I certainly wouldn't make it the default. I love that that crap disappears when I'm not actively using the program.

Make FTP mounts writeable

[mgkimsal2]

Why not give the ability to write to FTP-mounted volumes? For weeks (on and off) I kept trying to mount an FTP server and was getting 'permission denied' errors, and I kept thinking it was some FTP server permission setting issues (with a 'permission denied' message, what would you think?). Come to find out after much searching that they are simply not writeable. How friendly and usable! I bet I could write to mounted volumes on the .Mac service. ;)

Re:Make FTP mounts writeable

[hawaiian717]

That would be nice. While they're add it, why not add SFTP too? That's one of the things I like about Konqueror, using the same interface to copy files whether locally or across the network.

Re:Make FTP mounts writeable

[Maserati]

The Finder is finally an ftp client. But it's a lousy one. You can't write to an ftp volume. The entire Finder can degrade to the performance of the ftp site if the connection is poor (transpacific link, crappy server, huge transfer). It's a shame, some of my users really prefer working with ftp sites the same way they work with local shares. Even if Apple fixes nothing else about the Finder in 10.5 I'd like to see at least an improvement in how the Finder handles slow volumes so they don't drag the whole system down with them.

Re:Make FTP mounts writeable

[Guy Harris]

The Finder is finally an ftp client.

No, it's not. It's a client, ultimately, of a bunch of subroutines named open(), close(), read(), write(), readdir() (or getdirentriesattr()), etc.. (The access is mediated by a bunch of Carbon routines, but they ultimately turn into standard UN*X calls - or nonstandard extensions such as getdirentriesattr().)

The FTP client it's using when it's accessing an FTP folder is called mount_ftp:

$ ps axlww | egrep ftp
XXX 8034 1 0 31 0 28376 932 - Ss ?? 0:00.17 /sbin/mount_ftp -o noautomounted -o browse ftp://ftp.gtk.org/ /Volumes/ftp.gtk.org
XXX 8037 16689 0 31 0 27372 428 - S+ p4 0:00.01 egrep ftp

and it's a user-mode NFS server which is mounted on /Volumes/ftp.gtk.org. The Finder just accesses it the same way it accesses other folders, such as folders on your local disk.

The lack of write support is due to the lack of an indication of when the app writing to a file is finished writing to the file, so that it can be written back to the server; as I indicated in another posting, WebDAVfs (which works similarly; that's how an iDisk is implemented, for example) has its own kernel stub file system that talks to the WebDAV client program in userland, and can deliver "file closed" indications.

Re:Make FTP mounts writeable

[h3]

And while they are at *that*, why not replace Bluetooth File Exchange for a Finder mount. That app sucks.

Re:Make FTP mounts writeable

[mgkimsal2]

The lack of write support is due to the lack of an indication of when the app writing to a file is finished writing to the file, so that it can be written back to the server; as I indicated in another posting, WebDAVfs (which works similarly; that's how an iDisk is implemented, for example) has its own kernel stub file system that talks to the WebDAV client program in userland, and can deliver "file closed" indications.

I must be a bit thick here, but people have been able to write files over networks for years before WebDAV was even an acronym. While there might be some sort of 'under the hood' technical reason for this not being an easy thing to accomplish, FTP clients seem to manage it. OSX was/is supposed to be about making 'hard' computer things 'easy', hiding technical details from users, etc. So why should I need to get a 3rd party app or pay Apple for a .mac account to Transfer a File using a Protocol?

Re:Make FTP mounts writeable

[Guy Harris]

I must be a bit thick here, but people have been able to write files over networks for years before WebDAV was even an acronym.

I never said this had anything whatsoever to do with the WebDAV protocol; it's purely a question of the implementation of the WebDAV and FTP file systems.

While there might be some sort of 'under the hood' technical reason for this not being an easy thing to accomplish

There's no fundamental technical reason why this is possible for WebDAV but not for FTP. It's purely a question of, as I said, the current implementations of the WebDAV and FTP file systems (which were done independently). One could implement the FTP file system atop the same underlying infrastructure as the WebDAV file system, which would allow the FTP client file system to know that a file being written to was closed, just as the WebDAV file system does, so that they know that they can push the file system up to the server.

So why should I need to get a 3rd party app or pay Apple for a .mac account to Transfer a File using a Protocol?

Because, for better or worse, nobody's reimplemented the FTP file system atop the same kernel stub file system (for those who are curious about the implementation of WebDAVfs, see the webdavfs project in the Darwin source; I think you'll need a free Apple Developer Connection membership to get access to the Darwin source.)

Re:7. Motif is not user interface, etc

[Divebus]

Yeah... what HE said. Even car makers work to make controls dissimilar on the dashboard so you don't get them mixed up. If everyone is a creature of habit (and clearly everyone here is based on all the bitching on how a UI should be arranged to suit themselves) you really WANT buttons to move around between apps or you'll just blindly click something unintended.

How familiar with Mac OS X are these people?

[ptomblin]

Point 12: They seem to be complaining about how hard it is to find individual windows for an application. Haven't they seen Expose? No? How about splat-` to cycle through the windows of the current application?

Point 10: It's awkward to find applications too rare to put on the dock? I dragged my Applications folder to the dock as a folder. If I mouse over to it, I get a drop down menu of every app in the whole folder. Or I can double click on it to open the folder. Or I can go to Spotlight and type the first couple of letters of the application name and have it find the app very quickly.

User Point 3: The Apple mouse doesn't have three buttons. I spent a whole $9 for a Logitech optical wheel mouse, and all the buttons (including the scroll wheel) work just fine with no configuration.

Re:How familiar with Mac OS X are these people?

[brentyl2]

Quoting ptomblin: Point 10: It's awkward to find applications too rare to put on the dock? I dragged my Applications folder to the dock as a folder. If I mouse over to it, I get a drop down menu of every app in the whole folder. Or I can double click on it to open the folder. Or I can go to Spotlight and type the first couple of letters of the application name and have it find the app very quickly.

Couldn't agree more. Drag your important folders to the Dock. (They need to live towards the right edge - there's a faint division to separate apps from data.) I dropped my Docs folder, my Apps folder and a high-use database doc there. If you use it often, Dock it.

Furthermore, if you have easy access to the Apps folder (you can also always shift-Apple-A from the Finder) lets you de-clutter the rest of the Dock. OS X puts the iLife apps on the Dock by default, but I don't use iPhoto, iMovie or iDVD often enough to give them a permanent spot on the Dock. With the Apps folder on the Dock, they are three clicks away no matter what I am doing, in whatever app: One click on the Apps folder in the Dock, then two on the app itself within the folder.

Finally, if you have never used Spotlight (the instant-search gizmo), it works better than you have any ability to imagine. I used my Dad's XP box the other day, and thought Find was broken, it took so long. It was on a large-ish network, had lots of drives to scan, whatever - it still seemed endless after the almost-instant results you get from Spotlight. And, Spotlight seems to employ some sort of predictive behavior to come up with its Top Hit - it's impressive how often that is indeed the file I'm looking for.

I agree it's weird that 3 key Apple apps look different. I don't care though - it all works, and easily.

Re:How familiar with Mac OS X are these people?

[curunir]

Not that it isn't somewhat valid to critique OS X usability based solely on Apple's offering, but it's a bit disingenuous to criticise OS X for things that become incredibly simple when you install Quicksilver.

The rare application example is made incredibly simple in Quicksilver. I've basically removed everything from my dock because I can launch applications through Quicksilver. This allows me to use the dock similarly to manage only applications that are currently running.

Similarly, people often criticize OS X because you can only switch between open applications, not directly to individual windows of a running application. But Witch makes this task trivial.

There's a ton of these little utility programs that don't have Windows equivalents that contributing to making the OS X experience more enjoyable. I wish some of these critique articles considered the entire Mac experience with these commonly installed utilities rather than just the stock OS X install.

Re:How familiar with Mac OS X are these people?

[nickallen]

oint 12: They seem to be complaining about how hard it is to find individual windows for an application. Haven't they seen Expose? No? How about splat-` to cycle through the windows of the current application? This is one of the worst and most inconsistent features I found in Mac OS/X. The cycle applications allows you to flick between 2 recently used apps with Apple Tab (I think - it was a while ago I use one) but when you flick between windows of the same app using the splat-` you have to cycle through them all. I had a text editor that had about 30 windows open (I am a programmer) and when I wanted to flick between the 2 most recently used windows of the text editor I expected this shortcut to behave the same as the apple tab to flick between the 2 recent apps. But no I had to press it 30 times to flick between the 2 most recently used files. Retarded and inconsistent! Maybe there is a way to do this and I am not aware but I could not find out how...

Re:How familiar with Mac OS X are these people?

[Anonymous Coward]

User Point 3: The Apple mouse doesn't have three buttons. I spent a whole $9 for a Logitech optical wheel mouse, and all the buttons (including the scroll wheel) work just fine with no configuration.

And you don't mind Apple bundling a useless (for many users) $50 Mighty Mouse with your Mac when a $10 Logitech mouse would have been a much better option? Apple should either produce more Apple-branded mice (e.g. Apple Scroll Mouse) or offer 3rd party mice as options. Instead, Apple bundles their expensive Mighty Mouse like it's the best option for everyone.

Please Use Windows' Focus Model and Key Nav

[KidSock]

Oh, please switch to the Windows focus model and key navigation. When I first used my Mac mini I thought it was broken. I litterally went to the forums and asked questions about it. I couldn't figure out how I could launch an app and then loose it even though it appeared launched in the dock. And I spend 99% of my time in WindowMaker which is also based on the NeXT focus model.

Also, keyboard navigation is useless. Why would anyone want to remember all of those shortcuts?

I just know people are going to pop up and explain that I can do everything that I'm complaining about but don't bother because it's just not "as simple as possible and not simpler".

It's HARDER than Windows. When you click on an app in the application does not appear, only the menu bar get's focus. That's very confusing. So why not just switch to the Windows focus model that everyone is already familar with?

Re:Please Use Windows' Focus Model and Key Nav

[FlyingGuy]

Because its NOT Windoze you fool!

I like consistancy as much as the next guy, but telling Apple to use a model that is Windows, which has their own UI issues, is a bit like telling Ford to make their cars like GM does, aye?

I use it all, Macs, Windoze, KDE, GNome all of them. Each have the pluses and minuses. Rather than bitch like a baby, what did I do? Uhmmm I spent the sum total of about 30 minutes reading through a quick start guide for each. Guess what happened? I learned their pradigm! Hot damn, imagine that, reading! Who knew it would be a usefull skill!

So get a clue, dust off those littte gray cells, and actualy fucking learn something you fucking ludite!

Re:Please Use Windows' Focus Model and Key Nav

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you don't understand why the rest of the world uses metric either ..... stupid twot!

Re:Please Use Windows' Focus Model and Key Nav

[NeutronCowboy]

I had the same problems when I started working with my brand-new iMac. The only other mac system I had worked with is about 10 years old, and I don't even remember the OS name. So I was a complete and utter n00b the first day I switched on my iMac. And everything was HARD. It took me 45 minutes to install an app, because I kept looking for a setup.exe file. I tried to reinstall the same app when I logged in with a different user, and couldn't figure out why the OS told me that it was already there. It took me ages to figure out how to get to the end of a line of text, or to the end of a document. I have just now figured out how to tab between windows of the same app. I actually looked for about 15 minutes for the firefox preferences - until it dawned on me that all app menus are at the top of the desktop. The biggest eye opener though was working with iWeb. I decided to throw together a silly little blog, just to see how it works. I spent probably an hour manually resizing all images I wanted to use, exporting them to a public folder and hand-editing the templates in iWeb. Until I decided that I was gonna test Apple's famed ease of use, and decided to just drag my images from iPhoto onto the pictures in my iWeb template. And - miracles of miracles - the images just appeared in my blog. They automatically got thumbnails, the web page automatically knew where the images were, and the entire process of creating a page for my parents to check out my images took 30 seconds.

That, to me, was the epiphany that there is a Windows way, and there is a Mac way. The windows way requires you to know how Windows stores things internally, and what its design philosophy is. Everything needs to be done manually, especially when it comes moving data between apps. I used to think that the coolest thing in town was to be able to copy text from one remote terminal to another. Now I know better - there is the Mac way, in which I just do what I want to do. If it's something that ought to be common (enable ftp server? tab through apps? move pictures around?), there is a simple way to do it. As in, brain dead simple 1-2 click operation.

The reason you and I - and presumably a lot of other people - were confused is because we tried to use OS X like WinXP. Don't do that. Start to think that there ought to be a simple way to do it, and then just try it. I've found that that solves 90% of my UI issues.

Re:Please Use Windows' Focus Model and Key Nav

[santiago]

When you click on an app in the application does not appear, only the menu bar get's focus. That's very confusing. Of course the application appears. The application is the menu bar. Individual windows are merely specific documents opened with the application or specific functionality within the application. Mac users understand this. It's a different paradigm (and in my opinion superior and more flexible).

So why not just switch to the Windows focus model that everyone is already familar with? Because to Mac users, that focus model sucks. The fact that I can't close all of an application's windows under Windows yet not be forced to quit it and waste time relaunching it later is a defect as far as I'm concerned. I should never have to open an application twice between reboots. That's what virtual memory is for.

Re:Please Use Windows' Focus Model and Key Nav

[stewbacca]

My friend, you were guilty of what all my friends who don't like Macs are guilty of: applying Windows logic to Mac OS. If you turn the tables around, and were a Mac user for years, then went to Windows, it becomes so obviously clear why Apple has the highest customer loyalty and satisfaction rates. This article itself is a microcosm of why Macs are so great. Two experts find 15 nit-picky, and easy to circumvent "problems" with OS X. I could write a book on the shortcoming of Windows XP.

Not this Christmas....

[Quevar]

This Christmas she's getting a Dell with Vista. Are you talking about Christmas '06 or '07 cause Vista isn't coming out for another month and a half.

No MS office, and the converting to Pages was far from perfect They make Office for the Mac.

What is blend?

You said that "Apple has just lost its UI advantage" but everything you talk about is software that runs on top of the OS. I think that is a perfect example of why Apple still has the UI advantage - nothing there bothered you in your rant. On the other hand, Apple does have some problems with software compatibility, but that is largely because you are looking for the same software to run on both platforms. There is a lot of good software for the Mac, but it will be a little different than on Windows.

I hope all goes well with Vista after you upgrade it with your coupon in February. By the way, please reconsider getting a Dell, recently they are not good machines.

Re:Not this Christmas....

[Backus.Naur]

Are you talking about Christmas '06 or '07 cause Vista isn't coming out for another month and a half.
Vista is available through legitimate channels now( Build 6000, the same one that will come shrinked wrapped). Of course you can't get it at Walmart, yet.

They make Office for the Mac.
Agreed, but Word generally comes free with PC bundles.

What is blend?
Blend is the inteface designer for WPF, ( codename Sparkle ). Its a tool targeted at designers. It's in Beta 1 now, so you can download it. Use it, then go use Builder. Apple should worry.

By UI advantage, I think I should say the ability to create beautiful 2D/3D Vector UI easily.
Sure, there are great apps for the the Mac, but just like from day 1, software availability for the windows platform is way higher. No comparison.

Dell, ya.. it sucks working with Dell until you know their system, and which products to buy. I never buy their 'consumer level' products anyway. PowerEdge, Precision, and XPS lines have done great for me.

Re:Not this Christmas....

[Trillan]

I have never got a "free" Word. I have definitely had the option to get an inexpensive bundle, but it's never been free, and I've always had a choice to opt out of it. And none of those bundles have ever been less expensive than $33 ($99 for 3 users).

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[operagost]

What's the fullscreen button? Windows has minimize, maximize/restore, and close buttons. Do you mean fullscreen mode in Media Player? If you want your media player to fill everything except the task bar, then just use the Maximize button instead of fullscreen. If the maximize button is taking the entire screen, it's because you have your task bar set to auto-hide. That's by design.

The Return OR Enter Keys

[repetty]

> Hey Mike - arrow key until the file you want to rename is hilighted - and push enter.
> Wooooooo, scary hard.

In a Finder window, the arrow keys can be used to select a file. I just start typing the name of a particular file to select it or to select a file nearby and then use the up/down arrow keys to fine-tune my selection.

The delay that you have set before keys start repeating is the same length of time you must hold down a return OR enter key to enter a filename edit mode.

Just trying to clarify something that everyone knows already.

--Richard

Don't assume, think of an intuitive way to do it..

[Quevar]

I've heard a similar thing from many people - they are trying to use a Mac like a Windows machine. Often, I or someone else will tell them to think about what they are trying to and think of a simple/logical way to do it. Often, instead of trying the several step solution in WIndows, they just drag their item where they want it and it works or they find the option in the menu bar. If you can get people to break out of the mold of the Windows way, they begin to realize that there are different and often better ways.

Ah, the simple Mac...

[norminator]

No additional widgets required. Just open Terminal and do this

defaults write com.apple.dashboard devmode YES

After that, press F12 and start dragging widget.. then (while still dragging) press F12 again and drop widget on the desktop.

Wow... I didn't think that doing simple desktop tasks on a Mac could be as complicated as getting NVidia drivers working in Linux!

(I'm kidding... kind of.)

Re:Ah, the simple Mac...

[nine-times]

Really, though, isn't this a sensible way to do things? There are well chosen default settings and GUI controls for obvious and simple settings. If you want to change something more complicated or strange, that dumb users might find confusing, they give a sensible command-line option, exposing the setting to both power-users and developers who might have need of it.

Re:Ah, the simple Mac...

[NeMon'ess]

Why not make it an option in the Advanced Settings somewhere? That way a power user can find it without having to scour the net for obscure command line info.

Re:Ah, the simple Mac...

[nine-times]

In what form would they have these "advanced settings" though? Just a big huge list with thousands of settings that you could select true/false? Most of the settings aren't very useful to normal users, so I would think the most sensible thing would be to document them so developers could find them in case they need them. Beyond that, you can get freeware programs like Onyx which gives you a fairly large list of extra "advanced" settings that they believe people would want access to.

I mean, really, what OS isn't guilty of this? In Linux, think of all the files in /etc. Think of the Windows registry. If you don't know what you're doing in either case, you could spend quite a lot of time looking through obscure settings without knowing what they all do. No OS is providing a nice little menu for altering every possible setting. But if the defaults are reasonable, the most important settings are accessible, and the more rare and advanced settings are documented and open to 3rd party developers to work with, are there really grounds to complain?

Re:Ah, the simple Mac...

[NeMon'ess]

Except it wouldn't be thousands of settings, it would be more like dozens, or several hundred. The vast majority of settings in the Windows Registry are things I'd never want to tweak, but there are a hundred or so I would like conrol over. That's why TweakUI exists and I believe was bought by Microsoft. Now you say Onyx has settings like that, and other replies have mentioned other software to fix the gripes on the list, requiring the user to install several programs to enable power user functionality is a poor design choice.

Apple seems devoted to figuring out the way their products and software should be used, then limiting users' ability to use it any other way. Consequently, iTunes 6 doesn't have bookmarks so I can easily resume play in multiple playlists, because I'm supposed to use Party Shuffle so I don't have to drag through a long list and I'm never supposed to restart my computer.

Re:Ah, the simple Mac...

[nine-times]

Now you say Onyx has settings like that, and other replies have mentioned other software to fix the gripes on the list, requiring the user to install several programs to enable power user functionality is a poor design choice. Apple seems devoted to figuring out the way their products and software should be used, then limiting users' ability to use it any other way.

You miss the point. If you want to tweak one of the settings that most people don't want to tweak, you either need to know how to teak that setting or you need to have an application that can tweak it for you. There's no limitation there. You can leave it as-is, you can change it yourself, or you can rely on 3rd party developers to tweak it for you.

Re:Ah, the simple Mac...

[NeMon'ess]

Except that, to exaggerate, if Windows' Control Panel has 100 options to tweak, and OSX's has only 10, there's a possibly valid argument that Apple isn't offering enough built-in options in its GUI.

Re:Ah, the simple Mac...

[nine-times]

Even if I accept your premise that Windows is more configurable than OSX, it's equally arguable that Windows is offering more options than people need, and therefore creating an overly-complicated and confusing UI.

However, I don't think it's true that Windows gives you more options on anything like a scale of 10:1. Comparing Windows's "Control Panel" and OSX's "System Preferences", it seems like they have a fairly comparable number of useful options, and I can't think of an option that exists in Windows that should exist in OSX but doesn't. When you additionally figure in the open source components and Unix compatibility of OSX, and all of the options they've opened to developers, I think OSX is arguably more open to tweaking than Windows.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Apple had that behavior before Windows went mainstream, and before Gnome, KDE and whatever copied Windows.

The behavior you want doesn't make as much sense in OS X. I mean, why make the window bigger if it is to show more whitespace and keep you from dragging content to/from an other Window?

Mounted Disks

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely. I love the fact that OS X only shows one icon for each application, rather than each window. That feature and Expose complement each other beautifully. Once Spaces is out (to segregate projects that may be open for weeks at a time) I will be in heaven. I just wish I could get a Linux WM to act the same. That said there is one thing I would like to see added to the dock and that is mounted volumes.

I really dislike the idea of the desktop - it is just a folder that is obscured by anything and everything you have open. The suggestion to add more things to the desktop (widgets) is madness - the only thing it is good for is pretty pictures that you never see anyway. Expose makes it a little easier to get to things on the desktop, but I would rather not have to use it at all.

The document section of the dock is a very logical place to put mounted volumes, and it would make them much easier to access. It wouldn't take up too much space as you usually only have a few mounted at a time. For people that have many network volumes mounted, those could be grouped into one icon to save space.

The other things I would like to change are:

Dock - Make a setting to allow the dock to always stretch across the entire width (or height) of the screen, applications flush left and documents flush right. That way the static items are always in the same spot.

Finder - I could go on forever but in general I agree with John Siracusa - split it into a true spatial finder and a file browser. The retardedness of the grid layout can be excruciatingly frustrating at times. I love the Mac detail (tree) view, but the implementation has some drag and drop issues

Consistent UI - nuf said.

CD Burning - This may be fixed in Tiger, but the (data disk) cd burning in panther is horrid.

Fast User Switching - Again may be fixed in Tiger, but in panther fast user switching has lots of issues. Mouse hovering and the middle mouse button stop working if you have switched to a different user. When connecting USB and Firewire devices they occasionally become associated with the session that is not current rather than the one that is.

Also it would be nice to be able to put an application in a non-active session completely to sleep until that user logs back in. My motivation for this is not just to decrease processor usage, but to allow it's pages to be moved out to swap (teenagers + firefox + myspace == ungodly memory usage).

Oh, and having to hit Command-1 to display the Activity Monitor after you start the activity monitor is ridiculous.

One of the reader peeves...

[trudyscousin]

...was a complaint about shutdown error trapping (as they put it...huh?).

If one doesn't want to be pestered by that dialog, just choose the Shut Down command while holding down the Option key. Easy squeezy.

Come to think of it, that's a good bit of advice to follow whenever you find yourself wishing something behaved differently: Try the Option key. It won't always make a difference, but often, it does.

Re:One of the reader peeves...

[Fahrvergnuugen]

If you're wondering if option will effect a menu item:

• Click the menu so it expands
• Tap the option key

Any items that have an "optional" behavior will dynamically change in the menu.

For example in Safari if I click the "Window" menu and hit option, "Minimize" becomes "Minimize All" and "Bring All to Front" becomes "Arrange All in Front"

Re:One of the reader peeves...

[Stanza]

Actually, this is one of my gripes too. I'm used to setting the computer to shut itself off automatically at night. I leave the mp3 player on, fall asleep, and at midnight or one the computer should shut itself off.

With OS X, it politely asks all the programs to close, and firefox then politely asks if it's okay to close three tabs. Which means I wake up at four in the morning wondering why there is still music coming out of my computer.

My current workaround is set it to sleep rather than turn off, but usually I save everything before going to bed, so it doesn't matter. I don't want to put it in a cron job (as I go to bed at different times each night) and I actually do like the warning "This computer will turn itself off in 1 minute 58 seconds" so if I'm still awake I can hit cancel. But if I'm asleep, I'd rather the computer not ask me about other users still being logged before shutting down.

Re:One of the reader peeves...

[BadMrMojo]

They should call it the "Mobetta" key. It just makes everything mo' bettah.

- David Pogue on the Option key at a MacWold Boston session, many moons ago.

(This is actually from memory, so consider it paraphrasing, rather than a direct quote... in case I'm a bit off.)

package management and uninstaller

[_|()|\|]

One thing I miss from Linux is package management. Whether it's a .app with its associated files in /Library or ~/Library, or a .pkg installer, or a Makefile that installed to /usr/local, I'd like something like an RPM database where I can find out what package owns what files, and I'd like a common interface for uninstalling packages.

Re:package management and uninstaller

[spitzak]

Apple kind of messed up with the "Library" stuff. Everything you "uninstall" should be under the .app directory, so you can uninstall by throwing the thing in the trash.

"Library" should be for stuff shared by *multiple* applications and is data that might change. All those applications should work without the files being there (in particular this means that .so files go into the app, not "Library", unless you really expect people to customize and update that .so file). Uninstalling the applications should not remove things from the library, even if you remove the last one that uses the library item, you might reinstall one later.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[bkoehler]

#16 Simple windows management actions require two hands in Mac OS X (e.g. zoom full screen, Delete, etc.)

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[pairo]

Say I want a maximized terminal. Or my browser window, I want to have all the screen dedicated to it.

Items of personal preference...

[multimediavt]

Ok, I think some of the feedback is valid for Mac OS X coming out of these discussions, and Apple really *is* receptive to it. It might take a good number of people to bring up an issue over an extended period of time, but they do listen and will act.

The bottom line is, a lot of these issues with the UI are subjective and preferencial. It's really like comparing one religion to another because of the psychology and dogma that is picked up living with one UI or another. Sure, there are some identifiable and quantifiable *bad* things that exist in any GUI OS, but to say one is "better" than another is a bit silly when it all boils down to personal preference; just like religion.

Find an OS and a GUI that you like and allows you to be productive. Give useful feedback to the appropriate development group for the UI. Really, I'm platform agnostic. I'll use anything and can admin just about any current OS. For me, it's all about the tools not the garage their in. Sure I have a preference, but I don't drink the Kool-Aid.

Re:Items of personal preference...

[Ash-Fox]

Apple really *is* receptive to it.

I beg to differ.

Give useful feedback to the appropriate development group for the UI.

I have done that with Apple in the past, nothing came of it. After so many years, we're still stuck with stupid things like:

defaults write com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles TRUE

Ad revenue?

[Anonymous Coward]

This was apparently written by someone who knows little about the OS in order to start driving page impressions for Computerworld.

HIT: It's a different OS dumbass. Take time to learn it and all those missing features might just appear.

15 Things that are mostly non issues in Mac OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

15. No date display - The date can be shown on the desktop or on top of all windows by setting the clock preferences from "menu bar" to "window". There's your ugly date. Now for the real solution, just run iCal and close the window. It's not like it eats 90% of the CPU.

14. Widgets Can't Be Placed on the Desktop. - Yes they can. Enable debugging. drag a widget, press F12 to return from Dashboard, and let go. Widget. On. Desktop.

13. Inconsistent Use of Context Menus. - Context menus ARE useful... and that's why I use them all the time... so what's the problem? Where are they not fully used? Everyone can think of one or two more useful context menu items... and if we put them all in, we'll have context menus that make Windows look like it was built for one mouse button...

12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock. - This is what Exposé is for. This is also what Apple+Tab and Apple+` are for. Have these people used a mac???

11. Managing Window Size. - Yes, you are right.

10. Accessing Applications. - Applications folder on dock by default is a good idea. What is this nonsense about a second row on the dock? B/c that will make it easier to click on things when you have two rows moving and growing and then you'll complain about not enough space to fit 9,000 applications you never use into two rows and you'll want an autohiding dock that takes up half the screen... just drag the application folder to the dock. It takes 0.2 seconds and you only need to do it once.

9. Backspace and Delete Keys. - This took the longest time to get used to on the laptop... and now that I am, I forgot what they were even talking about. Both forms of delete would be nice on the laptop though.

8. Printer Setup. - It could be easier in some ways... I can't remember the last time it was easy to set up a printer in windows. But, I do remember the last time I set up a printer in OS X. I clicked print, clicked Bonjour Printers and it was there. Then, I got my papers and I was done.

7. Inconsistent User Interface. - The gunmetal grey theme is supposed to replace the brushed metal theme. Mail was a trial and if I recall correctly, it will be the new standard in 10.5

6. Laptop Screen Dimming - The screen dims in half the time before it shuts off. Set the screen to shut off at 10 min and it will dim at 5. If it bothers you, turn up the time. I have not experienced the loss of settings or fickleness they're talking about. I think I recall some GUI front end for modifying the default "low power" setting when on battery. Use the google.

5. Managing Finder's Columns View, Problem No. 1. - Mildly annoying. You can hover over files to view the full name or click them to see the details in the next pane. Personally, I don't like huge finder windows and would not like larger columns. Once I get to the desired folder, if there are long names or a lot of files, I switch to list view anyway. Columns for drilling down, lists for viewing... well lists!

4. Managing Finder's Columns View, Problem No. 2. - Consistency. I would cry if there were randomly sized columns everywhere. Perhaps a better solution would be that the preceding columns are all the same size and the last column is always bigger or it alone grows to fit.

3. Managing Finder's Columns View, Problem No. 3. - I've never had this problem and I don't quite understand what they're talking about.

2. Finder's Hobbled Cut Command. - You know, I've never noticed that Cut was missing. Sure... put it in there. If you're cutting and pasting files though, you really don't get the beauty of drag and drop and keeping windows small enough that you can actually use multiple open windows.

1. Dynamic Finder Refresh. - This was a problem in 10.3 and before, but with Spotlight and the kernel hooks that catch file creation and modification events, missing updates, especially on local volumes, are very rare. I'm guessing there is a performance tradeoff at work here keeping it from 100%, but th

Multiple Monitor Handling

[xrayspx]

I'm very set in my workflow, and one of the things that makes me hesitant to drop the hammer on a Mac Pro is the handling of multiple monitors. I use Desktop Manager to give me virtual desktops in OSX, and OSX handles multiple monitors like Xinerama, which I can't stand. I use a 3 headed X desktop at the office acting as independent displays, with their own virtual desktops. Having two or three monitors all change to different virtual desktops at the same time would annoy the shit out of me in the biggest way.

Apple seem to have this feature coming up natively in 10.5 and it will be interesting to see how they do it, my money is on "treat the whole thing like one big desktop and flip all monitors at once", but there is hope I guess.

Incorrect: 14. Widgets can't be placed on the d...

[SeanAhern]

It's not enabled by default, but a simple preference change allows you to drag widgets right out of Dashboard into your normal windowing system. I don't know why this is "developer" mode. This should be the default.

re: OS X 10.5 "in the can" .....

[King_TJ]

Yes, but if you follow some of the "rumor" sites, there's growing evidence that Apple is redoing the overall "look" of OS X and its related apps. They seem to be going for more of a "glossy black" look - and part of the change will likely include pulling the inconsistent styles of apps like iTunes, Mail and Safari together with the new appearance.

As they've been releasing 10.5 beta updates to developers, they've been simultaneously releasing even newer builds for internal use only. Why do that unless you have some UI changes you're trying to keep a secret? (Presumably, the developers are finding bugs and issues in the main code, and Apple is just implementing those on top of each "internal build" they release with the graphics appearance differences.)

Why can't they just use Ctrl+C to copy?

[selsine]

Seriously, why can't Apple switch to Ctrl+C for copy and Ctrl+V for paste? It's one of the most frustrating things for me when I'm using my Mac Mini, I always end up using Ctrl+C for copy not the weird command button?

When I move from Windows to Linux, I never have this problem, and as strange as it might sound it's one of the reasons that I prefer Linux to OS X...

Re:Why can't they just use Ctrl+C to copy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, why can't Apple switch to Ctrl+C for copy and Ctrl+V for paste? It's one of the most frustrating things for me when I'm using my Mac Mini, I always end up using Ctrl+C for copy not the weird command button?

Because the command key is for commands. It makes more sense to bind such things to an actual command key. On PC's, the Windows key would be equivalent, but it's too under utilized. It's just designed wrong and comes from the old times where there was no Windows key. AFAIK, Apple keyboards have always had the command key.
In MacOSX, there are many more keyboard shortcuts than you'll find in Windows, so of course the ctrl, alt and cmd keys are fully utilized.

Moreover, it doesn't collide with terminal functions, like Ctrl-C to stop a program in the terminal. You don't need a special copy/paste operation like in the Windows DOS shell.

If you are really worried about the key placement itself, you can switch the keys around in Preferences to match a PC keyboard.

Re:Why can't they just use Ctrl+C to copy?

[spitzak]

I think Windows got this wrong (Linux copied Windows). Windows should have used the Alt key. In fact if you look at DOS programs, the vast majority used the Alt key for letter-based shortcuts (they also tended to use the numbered function keys a lot more). Control keys either were shortcuts for navigation and text editing only (often emulating Emacs or Wordstar), or just inserted weird smily faces and cards. X applications also used the Alt key almost exclusively for shortcuts. The Alt key was much more equivalent to the location of the Apple key on Macs. And as X programs showed, using Ctrl made a consistent interface to a terminal application impossible. So it is unclear why Microsoft ignored all this precedent and chose Ctrl.

One possible explanation is that they wanted to run DOS programs in windows, and since they used the Alt key, they might be unusable if the Alt key did shortcuts such as open/close windows and thus blocked a shortcut the DOS program required. Another I have heard is that Alt was used by foreign keyboard layouts (the Mac used the "option" key which was placed where Ctrl is), however I am confused how this was done without breaking all the DOS programs anyway. Also Alt+numkeypad was hard-wired into many users brains for inserting foreign letters, though this should not have been a problem as the numeric keypad is not used for shortcuts anyway.

Re:Why can't they just use Ctrl+C to copy?

[Peganthyrus]

Because this would make people who've been using Macs for years scream with hate?

Re:Why can't they just use Ctrl+C to copy?

[selsine]

Yeah that may be true, but it would be so sweet for me if they did. That damnable command key gives me nothing but grief, but that could also be because I use a PC keyboard so I have to use that weird Windows key...

Re:Why can't they just use Ctrl+C to copy?

[selsine]

Hmm interesting I did not know that they used Alt for old DOS programs, you could have a point with why Windows went with Ctrl+C, but why did Apple go with Co+C?

I seem to remember that back in the day old Apples used to use some combination of Shift+Insert (paste) and something else to copy (I forget which it was). So when did Apple switch? Or did they always support both?

Either way it's not a terribly big problem, but I'm sure it's frustrating to most people moving from Windows/Linux to OS X.

Re:Why can't they just use Ctrl+C to copy?

[spitzak]

The Macintosh had the shift keys in the lower-left labelled ctrl, option, "apple". There was no key marked "alt". They used option to shift to foreign letters on the keyboard, and always intended "apple" to be the shortcut key.

PC's at the time had ctrl, Alt. The "Windows" key was added later, after all these decisions were made.

The shift+insert stuff was the Microsoft and CDE standard. Early versions of Word used this exclusively. I don't think Mac ever did it, and support on Windows and Linux is spotty, while every program in the world now supports the Mac ZXCV shortcuts. Despite the probably-good intention of not using up shortcut letters for editing keystrokes, it was obviously too hard to remember and everybody immediatly adopted the Mac shortcuts.

Re:Why can't they just use Ctrl+C to copy?

[spitzak]

This sounds like accurate information about what was going on at the time, and where the shift+insert came from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access

Re:Why can't they just use Ctrl+C to copy?

[overunderunderdone]

Because it's *always* been command+C probably for as long (or longer?) as windows has used ctrl+c.

Fortunately though it's a configurable setting:
Apple Menu -> System Preferences -> Keyboard & Mouse -> Keyboard (tab) -> Modifier keys (button)
There you can map the keys to the modifier. Just map the control key to be the "command" modifier and the command key to the control modifier and you'll have the Windows key mappings you're used to.

Re:Why can't they just use Ctrl+C to copy?

[GaryPatterson]

Why not use control-C/V/X/Z ?

Because that's a terrible idea!

Macs have used these since 1984, and every single application that can allow these operations uses the same shortcuts. It's completely in line with user expectations and is comfortable for single hand use (try control-V versus command-V to see what I mean).

So Windows uses control instead of command, and Linux copies the idea. That doesn't make it right or easy, and copying bad behaviour isn't going to win Apple any friends.

Of course, if you're really keen you can map those keys either in the keyboard control panel or the app itself (Microsoft apps use both, I think). You did know that you can add or override many shortcuts, didn't you?

Filename Incompatibility

[djc6]

My biggest 'pet peeve' is that OS X uses Decomposed Filenames (UTF-8-MAC aka UTF-8 Normalization Form D) and Everyone else uses Precomposed Filenames (UTF-8 Normalization Form C). The problem is, I have an Mac with a nice big Xserve RAID, I can't export it via NFS to Linux/Solaris/whatever clients and expect it to work. If the Linux/Solaris/etc clients try to save a file whose filename contains foreign characters, you get a Permission Denied error. I work at a University with lots of students whose primary language isn't English, so this is a big problem for us. Once we tried to move a bunch of home directories over NFS to the mac and noticed 2GB in files missing - they weren't copied because of the foriegn characters in the filename.

http://developer.apple.com/qa/qa2001/qa1173.html

"Most of Apple's built-in file systems use the techniques described above. Two notable exceptions are NFS and UFS. Of these, NFS is the most troublesome because NFS volumes can be shared with non-Mac clients that create files with precomposed characters in their names, and the Mac OS X NFS client does not decompose them before returning them to applications. If the user copies files from an NFS volume to your volume using a naive copy program (like the cp command line tool), the copy program will copy the files without decomposing the names. Thus your file system will by asked to create files with precomposed names. Your file system must be prepared to handle this, as described above."

Well, I'm using HFS+ - which is not prepared to handle this :) Nor is UFS on OS X. This had made it impossible to use OS X as an NFS file server.

Re:Filename Incompatibility

[spitzak]

Well that is just incredibly stupid. All these people have got to get through their thick skulls that they should attach NO meaning to the bytes in a filename. On Unix the '/' and null have some meaning, which is not really right, but as good as we are going to get without significant changes to the API. Past that, it should be *absolutely* irrelevant to the OS, *ALL* possible arrangements of bytes should be allowed, whether they are legal UTF-8 or not, and if the two byte strings do not match bit for bit, THEY ARE DIFFERENT FILES!!!!!

Doing anything else results in horrible problems, because different systems will disagree on exactly what strings are equivalent and as you noticed this results in extremely confusing incompatabilities.

How the string is displayed and distinguished to the user is strictly a GUI problem. Thinking you can fix it by somehow magically making the hard-to-display strings "illegal" is burying your head in the sand. The GUI will have to be able to display arbitrary strings anyway, as the program may produce them without actually reading a file name.

All you morons who think "case independence" is a good thing should listen up as well.

Re:Filename Incompatibility

[gleffler]

The answer to this seems to be rather simple: tell people to not use accented characters in filenames for files they plan on storing on the server? People handled only being able to use 8.3 for years, I don't think asking them to drop the accents is going to be a horrible, machine-breaking failure like you're making it out to be.

Translation

[Chas]

So, what you're saying is that if I don't like how something looks, acts, etc, I should just STFU, not care about fixing it, and drink the Apple Kool-Aid?

Just bow down to the All-Knowing Interface gods?

Sorry, that's the stupidest non-answer I've heard in a while.

Re:Translation

[Night Goat]

You're exaggerating. Reread what I wrote and stop twisting my words into an argument. That wasn't what I had in mind.

apple UI

[mrcdeckard]

a lot of people complain about the inconsistency of apple's UI between their programs -- but it happens here on slashdot -- each section has a different color scheme. i wonder if apple has it in the works to make different key applications present a different scheme. either way, i don't really notice -- the difference is cosmetic, and trivial.

mr c

Re:apple UI

[dal20402]

I think I'm the only person on the planet who *likes* the different looks for windows in different applications. It makes it much easier for me to see at a glance which of my bazillion open windows are Safari, and which are Path Finder, and which are Mail, and which are iTunes. Provided that all the schemes look finished and professional, I say bring 'em on. (I do think the iTunes scroll bars need some help, though...)

The only problems I have with Apple's current look are that 1) there should be more choices for the color of scroll bars/Apple menu/Spotlight menu, and 2) the bottom left corner of each window should be a resize handle.

For those complaining about the behavior of the Zoom button: Instead of hitting Zoom, hit Option-Command-H to "hide others." Personally, the maximize button is one of the things I hate most about Windows -- I want to be able to see my other open windows when at all possible.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[WillAdams]

Depends on the application and the framework it was programmed in.

Works in Cocoa apps such as CyberDuck and TeXshop.

Doesn't work in TextWrangler

Does weird things in Finder, esp. on a multiple monitor machine

Sort of works for Safari

All of which is a good argument for why Apple shouldn't've knuckled in to Microsoft and Adobe and should've stuck w/ their Rhapsody plan and never have wasted time on the foetid mess which is Carbon.

William
(who wants TIFFany instead of PhotoShop, Altsys Virtuoso instead of FreeHand or Illustrator and thinks that PasteUp could've been as good as InDesign and that FrameMaker would still be available on Macs if we'd had Rhapsody)

We Want Two Clicks !

[ranperry]

The only thing that prevents me from buying a mac, is the fact that they still use one click button on their laptops. I want my right-click to work without looking for the 'alt' or 'apple' key.

Re:We Want Two Clicks !

[Thrudheim]

If that's truly the only thing, then maybe you will buy one once you realize that putting two fingers on the track pad generates a right-click. Just turn that capability on in System Preferences.

Re:We Want Two Clicks !

[ranperry]

Nope. I am looking for a true right-click. The pad needs to be cut in two. Putting two fingers on the pad does not cut it for me. Close, but no cigar...

Re:We Want Two Clicks !

[Thrudheim]

Well, to each his own, but I've seen commentary from plenty of people who prefer the two-fingers on the track pad method.

Which is French for..

[jpellino]

"How about regular click an edge to move the entire window, and control-click-drag anywhere on an edge to resize? (or vice versa)"

Which is French for "the way MS does it..."

See Fitt's Law and the idea that moving something as simple as a window isn't a two-handed job. Remember, the desktop interface is a metaphor for real world actions. If you have to finagle your left hand to make your right hand pick up a piece of paper, something's gotten too complicated.

Since the cast majority of Windows users have no idea that you can as much as mice the taskbar, I have long suspected that the vast majority of the whizzy abilities of the Windows interface were there to ward off deeper look-and-feel lawsuits. And now we're stuck with them.

Another organizational idea

[stokes]

Or, even better, create a folder (or folder hierarchy) on the root level of your primary drive, then populate it with aliases to your most-used apps, organized by type or function. Navigating that folder via right-click in the Dock is easier and faster than the whole Applications folder. You can make the actual Applications folder an alias in the hierarchically-arranged one.

For eye candy goodness, put a custom icon on the folder of folders. You can paste the Applications folder icon onto your own folder, for example.

(Obviously, though, the folder doesn't need to be on the root level of the primary drive; that's just where I put mine.)

Re:Another organizational idea

[radish]

Nice idea. You could even give it a catchy name...like...err..."Start"? :)

Features

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I read over this list and few of them are minor UI gripes and the like. I found myself thinking, "yeah, okay that would be a better way." For the most part, however, none of these things are subjects I really care about. Give me real features instead of these and I'll be happy. For example, the classic emulation environment does not work on newer, Intel macs. By default, I can see that being advantageous to Apple as it encourages people to move to newer software, but has anyone tried to run an OS 9 in emulation on an Intel mac? It is a huge pain in the butt. You need to extract a ROM from an old OS install, using old OS 9 utilities and then use an obscure X-windows based GUI. We're talking about a significant investment of time, mostly because of legal issues revolving around Apple's ROM files which are not freely distributed. Before I see any of the changes listed here I'd rather have Apple throw their weight behind one of the open source projects and provide an official, downloadable OS 9 emulator. For that matter, include a MAME client, a DOS emulator, and some old games and have an all-in-one emulator for old games and programs. It wouldn't be hard and it would provide a lot more real value than anything I've seen listed here.

And how about some more and more pervasive system services? I've heard they can now be easily integrated in Carbon API applications, but in addition to the new grammar checker I'd really like to see some basic translation services, statistical analysis services, and maybe an integrated reference lookup service by default so more application designers can smoothly integrate these features.

I guess my basic point is, yeah UI tweaks are fine, but there is a lot more that could be provided in OS X and I'd like to see features first.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[osu-neko]

The button in question does exactly what you want in both of those cases.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Frizzle Fry]

why make the window bigger if it is to show more whitespace and keep you from dragging content to/from an other Window? Because it doesn't "keep me from dragging content". Maximizing is only for the current monitor. The content I want to drag is on my other monitor.

Return Panther's mail and prefs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tiger's mail is gawdawful. And Prefs no longer lets me drag prefs I use all the time to the top. Tiger is hideous compared to Panther.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[masklinn]

Doesn't work at all in Adium. Of course I don't quite see why you'd want that behavior for an IM client, but hey it still doesn't work.

Renaming isn't easy! WTF?

[Piscinero]

Because it's so hard to reach for that 'return' key to rename a file.

Shift Selecting

[seanyboy]

The one thing that drives me to distraction is trying to select multiple files in finder or multiple tunes in iTunes with shift and the keyboard. If you accidently select too many items, the temptation is to change from shift-Down to shift-Up. On a mac, this will start highlighting items above where you started your selection. Other than using the mouse there appears to be know way of unhighlighting items incorrectly selected.

CLI

[spitzak]

Everybody claiming this guy is too stupid to figure out that applications are in /Applications does not understand the problem.

Here, simply, is where Apple drops the ball on the CLI or on anything an expert user wants to do: mount a disk, perhaps by double-clicking one of those disk images. You can see the files in a window. Now, quick, tell me what the path name is for any of those files.

As far as I can tell, Apple has NO GUI to reveal this information. Even the most complete "get info" does not show it.

Linux and Windows would show the pathname in the window title.

Yes, I know you look in /Volumes and search around. But it does seem insane that they will not reveal this information.

Re:CLI

[Llywelyn]

...just drag the file in question into the terminal and it will conveniently pop up your answer.

Re:CLI

[tourvil]

Not on my Mac at the moment, but I thought get info did show the full path. It might be under one of the expandable groups. Also, you can command+click the folder icon in the title bar of the finder window to view (and go to) the other folders up the tree. It would be nice if there was a more convenient place to view and select the path though.

Re:CLI

[aesiamun]

Right click the application and choose Get Info, in the box there is a Where: which shows the exact path.

Also, cmd-i does the same thing when the application is already clicked on.

Re:CLI

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a hack, but drag the icon for the file into a terminal window and it will get replaced by the path

Re:CLI

[Anonymous Coward]

i just ctrl-clicked, went to get info and in the General: section i see:
Kind: blah blah
Size: blah etc...
Where: /Volumes/MacGPSPro.NewOnly/MacGPSPro.NewOnly.app/ and so on.
as well as the location of the DMG file.
This was a file contained within an .app mounted directly as a .dmg
and the only information that was ultimately missing from the 'full path'
was the filename, which i knew already because i clicked it.

Is this unusual behaviour for OS X?

Re:CLI

[JonathanBoyd]

For disk images, it even gives the path for the original disk image as well as the path of the file in the mounted image.

Re:CLI

[TheRaven64]

And disk image you mount will be in /Volumes. If you select a file, and hit command-i, it will tell you the full path. If you drag a file into a terminal, it will paste the whole path on the command line. If you run 'open .' from a terminal, it will give you a Finder window with the CWD in it. If you want to work with disk images from the command line, 'man hdiutil' will help you.

Re:CLI

[CptNerd]

To get the path easier, go to Finder, select View->Customize Toolbar. From the window, drag the "Path" icon to your toolbar. This gives you the same path info as the Command Click on the folder icon.

THANK YOU SO MUCH

[Anonymous Coward]

THANK YOU SO MUCH for not linking the pdf

Hardware !=operating system

[Andy_R]

Yes, it's annoying that the small form factor keyboard on the powerbook hasn't got a forward-delete key, and even more so on the 17" which is big enough to fit a full keyboard but still gets the mini one.
No, an operating system update is not capable of adding extra keys to your keyboard.

This is a valid complaint, but it's NOT a complaint about OS X, it's a complaint about hardware, and (arguably) so is the one about laptop screen dimming.

Re:Hardware !=operating system

[eldepeche]

I'd rather the letter keys be centered with the screen than have more keys.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay for discoverability! Er, wait...

Doesn't work.

[milatchi]

Option and Zoom button (+) Doesn't work in the Finder, iTunes, or Safari (probably many more).
And for some strange reason the Zoom button in Mail doesn't Zoom at all, it Maximizes. This itself is a huge UI inconsistency with the rest of Mac OS X (even Classic Mac OS conventions).
Contrary to what Linux and Windows user might think Zoom is NOT intended to be a Maximize or function like Maximize.

Mac OS X 10.4.8 Mirror Door PowerMac G4
Mac OS X 10.4.8 iMac intel Core2 Duo

Re:Doesn't work.

[mmkkbb]

It works in the Finder. Finder windows always leave space so you can see your mounted volume icons on the side of the screen after you option-zoom.

In iTunes I imagine the intent in not making things full screen is to leave room for the Dock.

I just tried zooming and option-zooming in Mail, and both filled the sreen with the window.

No explanation for Safari's behavior though.

Re:7. Motif is not user interface, etc

[dfghjk]

"First of all, brushed metal and shiny scroll bars have nothing to do with user interface."

You don't feel that the "look" part of "look and feel" matters to a UI? You think that "feel" is all that defines a UI?

"Each of these applications look different because they are different."

The point is that they are gratuitously different having nothing to do with their function.

"If an application is intuitive and responsive, like iTunes, Safari, and Mail, it should look different from other applications."

Why? How does making the apps different for the sake of difference improve usability or intuition?

Since when is iTunes "responsive". It's slow as a dog.

why should I?

[oohshiny]

Which files? Again, do some READING.

Why should I? The UNIX world has standards for how things work. OS X tramples all over them, often for no good reason. Given that OS X is much less widespread than UNIX/Linux and has no significance outside the home market, there is little reason to invest much time in it; any time invested in learning Mac-specific stuff is neither going to be useful professionally, nor is it going to help me down the road personally.

Microsoft can afford to do things their own way; they have enough market share. Apple can't. When Apple doesn't work like Windows or UNIX/Linux, it ends up counting against the platform.

Re:why should I?

[Midnight Thunder]

Why should I? The UNIX world has standards for how things work. OS X tramples all over them, often for no good reason.

If you look at '/usr', from the terminal, then everything standard is there, as for everything else there are reasons, you just need to take the time to understand them. As for other stuff most Unix implementations do things slightly differently from each other, some a lot differently (believe me I've worked on a fair number of them, including AIX, HP, Solaris and Linux). In many ways, while MacOS X is built on top of Darwin (BSD Unix derivitive), it is much more than that.

If you are just looking at the Darwin base, then it tries extending Unix into the 21st century providing support for dynamic devices and providing an object-oriented model for the drivers and other aspects of the system. There has been a lot of effort made to support legacy Unix applications, but there is only so much you can do when the needs of 2006 are no longer those of 1978.

On of that there is the graphical desktop environment and they do things a lot differently, but then again this fits in with the 'OS on top of an OS' approach. This is something that dates back from 'NeXT Step'. Sure they don't use the X11 standard, but sometimes you have to go your own way. BTW it should be noted that KDE, CDE, Gnome and other Unix graphical desktop environments rarely have an commanility beyond the fact they all use X11.

There are points when you have to appreciate what you know is no longer valid. The technology field is constantly changing, so if you can't stand change, then it will be really hard for you.

Re:why should I?

[MoneyT]

Given that OS X is much less widespread than UNIX/Linux and has no significance outside the home market, there is little reason to invest much time in it; any time invested in learning Mac-specific stuff is neither going to be useful professionally, nor is it going to help me down the road personally.

Then why buy a mac? Serious question. If there's no benefit to you at all, why spend the money on a product you don't want?

Microsoft can afford to do things their own way; they have enough market share. Apple can't. When Apple doesn't work like Windows or UNIX/Linux, it ends up counting against the platform.

Apple Computer: Proudly Going out of Business for Over 20 Years.

Seems to me they're affording being different just fine.

Re:why should I?

[TheRaven64]

Why should I? The UNIX world has standards for how things work. OS X tramples all over them, often for no good reason. No it doesn't. It implements all of the SUS spec that I have had reason to use, including quite a few optional components (although not all of them). As with any other *NIX platform, man hier will give you a quick summary of the *NIX directory structure. The other folders are well specified by the OpenStep specification, which is about a decade old, and has been implemented by NeXT, Apple, Sun and GNU. There are a few OS X-specific things, like Launchd, but these typically support backwards-compatibility; for example, Launchd includes a cron interface and an xinetd interface. Contrast this with xinetd, from the Linux world, which 'replaced' inetd without providing backwards-compatibility.

Re:why should I?

[dangitman]

Given that OS X is much less widespread than UNIX/Linux and has no significance outside the home market, there is little reason to invest much time in it; any time invested in learning Mac-specific stuff is neither going to be useful professionally

WTF? The Mac is used extensively in professional markets. In some markets it dominates, and is a tool of choice. During the "dark days" of Apple's history, it was used almost exclusively in professional markets and education. It's only relatively recently that home users have returned to the Mac.

It's actually funny how things have changed. For a while it was - if you want a cheap home machine, get a PC. If you want a professional machine, get a Mac. These days more people seem to be embracing the opposite attitude - use a PC at work, and a Mac at home.

Re:why should I?

[oohshiny]

Then why buy a mac? Serious question. If there's no benefit to you at all, why spend the money on a product you don't want?

Where did I say "no benefit at all"? The Mac has a reasonable UNIX command line, plus it runs a number of standard graphical applications reasonably well. But those areas where it differs from standards are, for the most part, a net minus. And the more customized and proprietary the Mac becomes in those areas, the worse it will do. Remember: this is the company that managed to run its own operating system into the ground and had to start over with a third party OS they bought.

Apple Computer: Proudly Going out of Business for Over 20 Years. Seems to me they're affording being different just fine.

Apple's corporate history is not a shining example of success; they have been close to disaster several times. If they keep going the way they are with OS X, they'll be up for another crisis in a few years.

Re:why should I?

[oohshiny]

WTF? The Mac is used extensively in professional markets. In some markets it dominates, and is a tool of choice.

Overall, professional usage of the Mac is negligible. Even if we look at specific market niches, I don't know of any where the Mac "dominates"; even in its traditional strongholds (graphics, video), users have moved overwhelmingly to PCs.

These days more people seem to be embracing the opposite attitude - use a PC at work, and a Mac at home.

More, yes. But it's still single digit percentages.

Look, I'm not saying that the Mac is bad or about to go out of business. I'm simply saying that many people will not bother learning Mac-specific stuff, in particular when it comes to programming or customizing the machine. The sooner Apple realizes that, the better the chance that they avert another MacOS-like meltdown.

Re:why should I?

[dangitman]

even in its traditional strongholds (graphics, video), users have moved overwhelmingly to PCs.

Actually, video was never a traditional Mac stronghold (except for desktop multimedia - eg Quicktime) - video editing/effects was first the domain of custom systems (Quantel Paintbox, etc) and Amigas on the more experimental side. Then it went through a painful transition to awful PC systems. Today, the Mac is gaining share as people are ditching their awful PC/Avid systems in favor of Final Cut Pro. It's still dominant in publishing, and Photoshop. It's possibly even more dominant in music and audio production. Musicians, publishers and photographers have always gravitated to the Mac, and still do.

More, yes. But it's still single digit percentages.

I don't think the home share is in single-digit percentages. Nor is it in the graphics and video market. The problem is that the single-digit (3-4%) figure is based on ALL systems - which includes millions of boring office machines. Home users and niche professional users are MUCH more likely to own a Mac. The large market-share figures are simply because of the large base of corporate mass-purchases. When it comes to those who are passionate about their machines, and actually choose their machines, it's a different story altogether. The vast majority of Windows users don't "choose" their machine - it's just what their boss gives them at work.

Re:why should I?

[oohshiny]

I don't think the home share is in single-digit percentages.

Retail market is about 6.6%. Entire market share is around 4.6%.

When it comes to those who are passionate about their machines, and actually choose their machines, it's a different story altogether.

None of that matters to my central point: Apple isn't going to stay around through creating more proprietary technologies--software developers and system administrators have little incentive in learning that stuff. Right now, the only thing that's saving Apple is that open source developers are covering for some of Apple's stupidity with compatibility tools, but that's not going to work forever. Apple should be moving even further towards open technologies, not away from them.

Re:why should I?

[MoneyT]

Where did I say "no benefit at all"?

The part where you said that learning about mac methods will not help you professionally or personally. In such a case, why bother?

The Mac has a reasonable UNIX command line, plus it runs a number of standard graphical applications reasonably well.

All of which you could accomplish with a windows computer and a linux computer. Heck they could even be the same computer, and you're obviously much more comfortable in those environments and since you have no desire to invest in learning a different environment, again I ask why buy a mac?

Remember: this is the company that managed to run its own operating system into the ground and had to start over with a third party OS they bought.

Both of which with directed by the same person, but also largely irrellevant, unless you believe that a company should never change it's course from it's initial direction nor use better technologies when they become available.

It's also worth noting that your blind adherance to "standards" without consideration for advances in technology and computer use are just as bad if not more so than differing from the standard.

Apple's corporate history is not a shining example of success; they have been close to disaster several times. If they keep going the way they are with OS X, they'll be up for another crisis in a few years.

Yes yes we know. And if you do a search you can find a news article from each since probably 1988 declaring that Apple is dying and without doing X Y or Z will surely perrish in the next few years.

Their failures in the early 90's had less to do with standards and lack of adherance thereto and more to do with lousy business management and direction.

By the way, what was the connection standard in 1998 for most periphrial devices? And what company chose to differ from the standard? And what is that standard today?

Not all standards are good just because they've always been.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[94229a]

The parent is referring to the "maximize" button.

On Windows, pressing the maximize button, maximizes the window so that it takes up the entire screen (well, except for the task bar as you mention).

On Macintosh, there is a button called zoom. It resizes the window to show all the contents of the window. In some cases, this is (considerably) smaller than the entire screen.

The problem is that Windows Users (and apparently Linux Users) expect the zoom button (on the Mac) to take up the entire screen, so that it hides all other open windows. it doesn't do that.

Conversely, when Mac users use Windows, the maximize button really isn't what they want. They want to make the window bigger, but the don't want to obscure other windows, because they still want to see and use content from the other windows.

Both implementations have their uses. The confusion lies when you try and work in multiple environments and expect the same functionality.

Date in menu bar

[littleghoti]

Instructions for putting the date in the menu bar here, here, or here.

If number 15 is wrong should I care about the rest

[kinglink]

I don't know or care about number 14-1 really, they do have some good points but the reason I don't care is number 15 is flat wrong.

If given enough space Windows will display the date and time and day of the week. I use a sidebar style start menu and it's always displayed that, if it hasn't on the writers screen, well maybe he needs a better monitor so he can use a start bar that isn't the absolute acceptable minimum?

If that is wrong, what else could he have wrong? The answer is probably a lot.

Pet peeve: window selection

[Miraba]

Ok, here's my disclaimer: I use Windows at home. I use OSX at work.

At my job, I'm in charge of filing lots and lots of papers. I also keep all of the files on my computer. I have my own naming system, and I like to arrange things alphabetically within most of my folders. I download most of my files, and it's fastest to save them to the desktop and move them later.I do not sort the folders on my desktop by name. I group them by type.

When I drag files from the desktop to my folder of choice, I usually like to resort everything alphabetically. Except, of course, that OSX doesn't highlight the folder. It still thinks I want to work on the desktop, even though the desktop might be buried behind several open windows. So when I go View -> Arrange -> by Name, everything on my desktop is reordered.

It doesn't help that the difference between grays means that I can barely tell which window is highlighted. (Is there some way to change this? I haven't been able to find anything.)

And while I'm complaining about rearranging files and folders, why isn't there a shortcut for it? I should think there would be a keyboard shortcut for Arrange, or even just for Clean Up.

Re:Pet peeve: window selection

[Peganthyrus]

view->show view options (apple-j)

If you're in icon mode (which is the only way 'arrange' makes any sense) there will be a 'keep arranged by' checkbox with a popup menu for by what.

Make sure you check that the 'this window only/all windows' button at the top of the view options window is set properly, it tends to default to 'all windows' which is usually wrong in my experience.

Re:Pet peeve: window selection

[Miraba]

Thanks! Time to start applying it to several dozen folders...

xorg style pasting

[Vincepb]

I really wish OS X worked like X.org when it came to copy/pasting.

Highlight = copied, middle click = pasted.

Why bother with menus and keyboards?

Re:xorg style pasting

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I really wish OS X worked like X.org when it came to copy/pasting. Highlight = copied, middle click = pasted. Why bother with menus and keyboards?

Here's a workflow. I want to copy some text, delete it, then replace some other text with that first text. Using X.org, I highlight the second text and delete it. Then I highlight the first text and it is copied. Then I delete it. Then I navigate again to the second location and paste. In total I have three navigations of the file, two highlight operations, and three keyboard operation (2 deletes and one paste).

Using the Apple way, I navigate to the first text and highlight it, then use the "cut" keyboard operation. I navigate to the second text, highlight it, and use the paste feature. In total I have two navigations, two highlights, and two keyboard operations.

What does this demonstrate? Simply that the Apple way is more efficient for some operations. The relative difficulty of the navigation, highlighting, and keyboard operations determines by how much the Apple way is superior in this workflow. Now I can just as easily come up with workflows for which the X.org way is superior, but I'm not even going to pretend that I know which is better for a given class of user. I know for myself, the Apple way is better. I often copy some text and then want to perform operations on other text I highlight without copying that text and complicating my workflow with multiple paste buffers. Hopefully this does, however, explain to you why they might be keeping their own way of doing things. For me, it also makes more logical sense. Highlighting is a way of selecting data. copying that to a buffer is an operation on that data. Much of the time I don't want to copy it. Instead I want to cut it, or spellcheck it, or grammar check it, or perform a word count on it, or look it up in a thesaurus, or translate it to German, or look it up in my specified online references. It makes sense to me that each of these operations is tied to a given key combo, and it is not intuitive to me that one of those operations would automatically without my launching it or specifying that behavior.

For people who only use the copy and paste functions and only in ways that don't conflict, it might make a lot of sense and save time. I'd say the best compromise is to provide custom settings so that a user can specify an automatic operation to be performed whenever something is highlighted. I'm not sure if there is an easy way to do this now. For normal users, however, I think the default is correct right now.

Re:xorg style pasting

[Vincepb]

Ah, but, you can have both! And thats actually how X.Org behaves.

It's as simple as having two buffers, one for "proper" copy/cutting/pasting, and one for quick jobs, where a highlight and a middle click is better suited.

As an example, in Firefox right now, if I middle click, I'll paste my first sentence, because it's the last thing I highlighted. If I hit ctrl+v, I'll paste my subject, because it's the last thing I had highlighted when I hit ctrl+c.

Best of both worlds.

Not being able to middle-click paste is the reason I don't use a Mac currently, and just finished building a new whitebox to run Linux on for work.

Re:xorg style pasting

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It's as simple as having two buffers, one for "proper" copy/cutting/pasting, and one for quick jobs, where a highlight and a middle click is better suited.

Multiple buffers are fine for power users, but they are simply too hard for normal users to understand and use, from what I've seen. I don't consider them to be a reasonable default. I'm by no means a novice user and I have successfully used multiple copy/paste buffers in the past, but it interferes with training your hands to do the right thing when you have to juggle two different mechanisms. I often want to copy something, highlight something else, perform an operation, and then paste the first something. My fingers simply don't remember that I have use an operation to copy something the first time, if I'm going to be doing that, when I normally just highlight to copy. Realistically, the time it takes for me to hit a key combo when my hands are already on the keyboard is negligible compared to a few instances of going back and recopying something because I copied it into a buffer that was then overwritten. I suspect this is true for a large number of users.

I'd much rather see both multiple buffers and automatic operations on highlight to either the standard buffer or a special buffer as an optional feature. It is one of those things like virtual desktops that is aimed more at UNIX people who don't want to change, than it is at real usability benefit for the majority. I think it is worthwhile, but should not be a big priority. I like my middle mouse button activating expose, thank you very much.

you're confused

[oohshiny]

All of the things you list are just preferences based on what you know and based on Microsoft-compatibility; they have nothing to do with usability.

Anyone who has spent a little time with Blend and Vista will realized that Apple has just lost its UI advantage

Technologically, Apple hasn't had a UI advantage in many years. But Apple has had an advantage in overall user experience compared to Windows, and it is keeping that. Vista adds a lot of features, but that doesn't make Windows a better experience; in fact, quite the contrary: the problem with Windows is, and has always been, that it has had too much stuff in it.

Re:you're confused

[Backus.Naur]

I am talking about user experience. When something doesn't 'just work' it very much effects the user experience. Especially for the novice user. I'm saying Apple lives a bubble when it comes to user experience. Example, a website doesn't work in Safari. The Apple apologetics just say, "The website doesn't conform to standards". The user doesn't care about standards, the only thing they know is that their user experience is very poor, cause they can't check their bank account. It's the same thing with any compatibility. I would say compatibily effects user experience more then any single issue.

Re:you're confused

[dloose]

The word is "apologists", not "apologetics".

Re:you're confused

[oohshiny]

I am talking about user experience. When something doesn't 'just work' it very much effects the user experience

So am I.

Example, a website doesn't work in Safari. The Apple apologetics just say, "The website doesn't conform to standards". The user doesn't care about standards, the only thing they know is that their user experience is very poor, cause they can't check their bank account.

There are plenty of web sites that fall miserably on their face with Microsoft software, simply because they are written for some other version of Windows/IE than you happen to be using. Ditto with MS Office documents. Ditto with PC hardware. There simply is no way to win even if you go completely with Microsoft. In my experience, Windows is just as much hassle as Mac or Linux in terms of compatibility problems.

It's the same thing with any compatibility. I would say compatibily effects user experience more then any single issue.

Yes, but you have failed to demonstrate that it's any better with Windows, you're merely assuming that it's better because everything claims to be "Windows compatible", even if it isn't.

No, what you are complaining about is simply that the Mac is not familiar to you.

Rofl ... if thats the only problem

[angel'o'sphere]

From the article: "7. Inconsistent User Interface. Open iTunes, Safari and Mail. ....


This are 3 completely different applications, ofc it makes sense all 3 use different "patterns" for the frame. Why should it be the same one? And where is the problem in user experience? There is none, all click, drag, etc. action, the scrollbars, the buttons work consistently!! Inconsistent is if 2 diffeent applications use for related activities completely different user interactions, like windos does.

angel'o'sphere

I like the "Inconsistent User Interface."

[alfredo]

It gives me visual cues to what app is behind the front application.

My number one complaint as a recent switcher

[Nyenyec]

Keyboard navigation on the Mac suxx.

Some functionality is not accessible without a mouse (maximizing and restoring minimized windows for example).

Some functionality takes a lot more keystrokes. E.g. navigating application menus.

Dialog boxes don't have keyboard shortcuts (the kind that you activate with Alt+KEY on Windows and Linux). Some don't even have tab navigation -- I'm looking at you, iTunes delete dialog.

For me, Mac OS X is unusable without a mouse or trackpad, which makes me less productive than I was on Windows/Linux.
There are things I like though, but this was a disappointment.

I wrote about this here.

Re:My number one complaint as a recent switcher

[JonathanBoyd]

Actually, most dialogue boxes can be manipulated by keyboard, they just don't have the relevant letters highlighted. Lots more elegant, but is understandably irritating for keyboard junkies. command-. is always cancel, command-[first letter] usually works for other buttons.

If you turn on keyboard navigation, then a blue highlight appears round the default button and you can use space to select it and tab to move between options. Turning on full keyboard navigation is a must if you're a keyboard junkie.

what's so hard about...

[circusboy]

hitting enter (or return)? easier key to hit than F2...

Please, if just one thing could be changed...

[-noefordeg-]

Change it so that the "home" and "end" buttons do the same things in ALL programs. It's so fucking annoying right now. To get to the end or the beginning of a line, you sometimes have to hit the "end/home"-substitutes, or apple-end/home-substitutes, or apple-left/right-arrow keys.
In Windows every program recognizes Home/End, and takes you to the beginning or the end of the line. Combining this with the shift-key to select text, makes the Mac even worse.

Re:Please, if just one thing could be changed...

[spitzak]

Emacs shortcuts work on the Mac: Ctrl+E for end, Ctrl+A for start of line.

Re:Please, if just one thing could be changed...

[ruyon]

The proper mac way to do what you're saying is is cmd+left / right keys. In Mac OS, Home/End keys should show you the head / tail of a document, rather than move the cursor to the begining/end of a line. What are broken are apps written by the developers who have the mindset of windows/unix users, not the old school Mac apps.

#7 might be intentional.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

"Inconsistent User Interface. Open iTunes, Safari and Mail. All three of these programs are Apple's own, and they're among the ones most likely to be used by Mac OS X users. So why do all three of them look different? "

This bugs me too, but I think it's intentional. First off, Apple probably doesn't want us thinking of iTunes as just another UI widget like Calculator or TextEdit. It has its own look and feel.

Plus, of course, iTunes has to maintain cross-platform compatibility and an Aero-style interface might look less than optimal running on Windows.

Fix Trash/Recycling Bin

[otter42]

I'm certain that the Trash can was an excellent idea when it first came out (except for putting your disk in the trash in order to eject it. WTF???) That's why MS improved it into the Recycling Bin. It's time for Apple to fix two horrendous mistakes, and one minor one.

1) Can't permanently delete directly from Finder. I can SHIFT-del in Win, and it gets rid of the file instantly and forever. That's quite nice for large files such as movies that you want off your system right away. With Mac, I have to rm -Rf everything if I want it to go away instantly.

2) Can't selectively delete files from Trash. I should be able to delete what I want, when I want. I don't care WHY Apple made the Trash motif, I care HOW I want to use it. And I want to use it like Windows. I know a lot of people say that that's not how Mac was developed, but I don't care. Adding my wished-for functionality doesn't change a thing for Mac, just like adding a three-button mouse doesn't prevent developers from trying to make everything all work with just one. (Although one button being completely inferior to three buttons sure prevented them from doing it.)

The best argument I've seen for changing this behavior is what happens when you're on your boss's computer and need to free up some space on your USB key in order to get a file of the computer. Do you empty the trash, possibly deleting his important files? What if he's not there to ask? If you don't know about rm -Rf (most people don't), you have to waste lots of time now either making a new directory and temporarily storing his data there while you empty the trash (As much as we don't want to admit it, most users won't think of this one), or wandering from computer to computer until you find someone who can empty it for you (more likely of two for non-technical users). (To be fair, the most likely solution for non-technical users is just to empyt the Trash without even thinking about the possible consequences. Whoops.)

3) Can't automatically put a file in the Trash back where it came from. Yeah, it's minor, but again, Windows does it right, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Yes, I know that there are aftermarket tools that will do all this for me, but I shouldn't have to pay or install someone else's possibly buggy software that changes LOTS of things when I only want one thing that I have come to accept as completely normal in the Windows and Linux worlds.

Mac Users liek it "in the can" .....

[Anonymous Coward]

http://images.slashdot.org/hc/26/4f474c73ac00.jpg

Missing the obvious...?

[trimbo]

... make it run on any beige PC?

The more Apple moves into consumer electronics, the more this just makes sense.

Re:Missing the obvious...?

[OrangeTide]

With Vista looking just like OSX there does not seem to be any point. If you want fancy GUI on a beige box, just buy Vista.

Forward Delete (point 9)

[Midnight Thunder]

Forward Delete is available on MacBooks: fn-delete.

Worst thing about OSX is...

[Kipper the Llama]

...the fact that, when you minimize a window and pull it up using Apple+Tab, it STILL doesn't reappear until you pull it up from the dock. Seriously. This causes 95% of my frustration when moving from Windows to Mac.

Re:Worst thing about OSX is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple+Tab reveals an application switcher not a window switcher. Thus, selecting an app brings the application to the front. Any unminimzed windows for that application will also be brought to the front. Minimized windows for that application will not. In my case, I keep multiple documents open in Word, but minimize a couple I'm not working on at that moment. If I apple-tab to Safari to copy some text and then apple-tab back to Word to paste the text, I do not want my minimized documents to suddenly appear.

Re:Worst thing about OSX is...

[Thumper_SVX]

It may sound snotty... but don't minimize. I almost never minimize any of my windows, and I have a number open at once. If I want to focus on a window, I bring it to the front. If I want to switch, I have Expose bound to my middle mouse button (I usually use an external mouse), and I just two clicks and I'm in the app I want. I have multiple windows to work in an app? Well, I position them so I can see them... or there's always right-click on the dock... or there's the "Window" menu at the top of the screen. Take your pick. Most of my apps though are either relatively single-tasking (mail, iTunes), or tabbed (browsers). As a result, I rarely have more than one app window open. The only exception that is X11, but then I tend to just have a couple of tiled terminals open at a time.

Any OS needs to be learned... you need to learn the best way of doing things in every OS. You didn't magically appear on a Windows desktop and immediately know what to do... you had to learn to work around its way of window management. OSX is not Windows.

Re:Worst thing about OSX is...

[sidb]

To elaborate just a little more, Command-` (that's the key above the tab key) switches between non-minimized windows within the front application the same way that Command-tab switches between entire applications. Lots of people coming from Windows don't know that because Windows doesn't have an equivalent for Command-`.

Re:Worst thing about OSX is...

[yasny_jp]

For me, instead of minimizing, I just hide the application. CMD+h will hide the application and all of its windows. Then, when you use CMD+TAB and tab back to the application, all of the windows will reapear.

If you want to be able to tab through windows, I highly recommend Peter Maurer's "Witch" software. You can customize it but I believe the default is OPT+TAB and it will pop-up a window where you can tab through all open/minimized windows. X11 applications don't work with this, however.

Re:Worst thing about OSX is...

[noidentity]

Thank god for this behavior, too; it's a pain in the ass on Mac OS Classic (which I still use a lot), where clicking on one window of an app brings every other freaking window for that application to the front, awful for things like a text editor/viewer or the Finder. In this respect OS X is more like Windows, where in windows each document acts like an independent invocation of the application program.

Re:Worst thing about OSX is...

[jim3e8]

To gain this behavior, hide your entire app with Command+H; Command+Tab will then unhide it. If you want to minimize a single window, just navigate directly to it in the dock--don't switch to your application first. If a window is minimized in the active application, you can often press Command+1 (or similar) to bring it up. Or use Expose as another poster suggested.

Personally, I use Hide, Cmd+`, and Cmd+Tab exclusively.

Re:Worst thing about OSX is...

[not-enough-info]

Not a perfect solution, but if you just want to do it via the keyboard...

1) Control-F3 to keyselect the dock.
2) Arrow keys to hilight the window you want to un-minimize.
3) Enter key to un-minimize.

Re:Worst thing about OSX is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people coming from Windows don't know that because Windows doesn't have an equivalent for Command-`.

Uh, yeah it does. Ctrl-tab switches windows in MDI applications, which is the Windows equivalent of the different windows for an OS X app.

Re:Worst thing about OSX is...

[jesboat]

Um.... no. Control-tab on Windows switches between every window on the system.

Apple-tab and Apple-` on the Mac switch between (respectively) apps and the windows of the current app.

None of those are the same.

Re:Worst thing about OSX is...

[jesboat]

And use PullTab if you want to activate which with Apple-Tab (normally reserved by the Dock for the app switcher.)

Re:Worst thing about OSX is...

[eMilkshake]

You should hide apps instead, then. Apple-H in most apps or hold option and click outside the app. Hidden apps don't show windows, but respond when apple-tabbing. It's also slightly faster b/c there's no animation waiting for it to minimize/maximize.

Re:Worst thing about OSX is...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have taken less time to try it out than to write up that post and look ignorant.

Alt-tab on windows switches between all windows, ctrl-tab switches between sub-windows in MDI applications (e.g Word, Opera, IDEs etc). Ctrl-tab is the windows equivalent of what apple-` does, taking into account the different design decisions of the platforms.

A mac user's response to this list..

[plasmacutter]

This list reflects a lot of "windows user" bias and ignorance about the features currently in tiger.

I'll go through the points I take issue with.. if I don't touch them it means I think theyre valid.. and there were at least a few valid ones.

14 - a widget on the desktop is called an application... exactly what is so inconvenient about pressing the f12 key. Even on a several year old system the dashboard loads quickly enough.

13 - it's called fruit menu, a convenient little shareware app which, among other features you'll like (which i'll get to later), gives you about a million different ways to customize contextual menus with negligible resource footprints.

12 - I think someone doesn't know what the f10 key does ; )

11 - valid, but I for one don't like the idea of windows resizing on me when i want to simply move them to the side, so make it optional like hot corners.

10 - remember fruit menu? it makes the apple menu customizable like the windows start menu.. simply add your application folder to the apple menu with this baby installed and it's right there.

9 - next you'll be complaining that because GM put's their headlight switch on the dash rather than the steering wheel, asian imports should do it to. Don't like raising your finger to hit the FN key? get a pc.. geez.. i'm a touch typist and have never had a problem with this.

7 - This is not a functionality issue.. it's an "I don't like it" issue.. well some people like to have a bit of asymmetry in their surroundings.. i don't know about you but if every room in my house was painted the exact same color i'd get really really bored..

6 - valid but nitpicky...i've never had the screen dim at an inopportune time.. i've compiled mplayer and run it from a shell and have watched 2 hour movies on my macbook without troubles with it. if youre really anal about it i'm sure there's a hack for it somewhere..

4 - interesting.. but another point which i'd like to see as optional.. I often come across files from places like image boards where the name is a VERY long hash value. I don't want a column that's 1200px wide and hanging off the screen, thank you.

3 - it's called drag and drop.. you can find the file you want in finder, drag it and drop it into the column view application dialogue. (sometimes it needs twice).. there is a second option of simply grabbing the icon of the file in the title bar of the window you have it opened in and dragging it to the dialogue that way.

2 - nitpicking again. I regularly drag files into a space 3 px across.. have a lot of windows? that's what expose' is for. Additionally, if youre moving files between drives it helps to prevent loss in the event of some catastrophic failure.

1 - i do a lot of file manipulation on my computer.. use it intensively.. and i've never had issue with dynamic updating. In fact the one thing I do notice is a nifty little feature in the finder where a renamed file will wait about 10 seconds before refreshing to it's proper location on a list or column.. in the case of folders this is very helpful.

finally.. that list really betrays some bias.. come on.. that same tired "second mouse button" thing?

The name of the game...

[Striver]

While it doesn't address the issue directly, this actually highlights the fundamental difference between Microsoft and all other competitors in this market and is the primary reason Microsoft keeps kicking butt in this market even though their products are technically inferior.

Many, many years ago I worked in an auto body shop. The owner of the shop had a simple rule, it didn't matter what went into the repair job. For all he cared you could fill a hole in a quarter panel with moldy donuts and used up steel wool pads, just as long as the end result appeared completely professional to the customer.

This is the strategy Microsoft has followed and it works, obviously. It isn't so much a matter of things working one way in windows and another way in OS X. Take window sizing for example. In windows, grab the corner, side, top, bottom or even right click the task bar icon. It makes no difference...it all works. Want to change the name? Slowly double click the file, or right click and select rename or just about any other way that seems logical, Windows is right there for you looking very professional. Want to delete a file? Highlight and hit the delete key, or drag to the waste basket, or right click and select delete, whatever works easiest for you, we are all different and windows is right there for you looking completely professional no matter how you waant to do it.

Mac people, and for that matter linux people and the bulk of the open source community just don't get this at all. Once the functionality is there and it can be accessed some way, they figure the job is done. When you complain that it doesn't work well with your work flow they say, "Tough cookies, it's my way or the highway." Microsoft's response is, "You want it this way? Fine, no problem! You want it that way? well there you go! You want it another way? Well that is in there too!"

That is all the average customer ever sees and they assume that everything behind it, right down to the kernel, is just as professionally put together. They never see the bailing wire and duct tape holding that fine professional interface in place. Out of sight, out of mind. And that is why Microsoft is going to continue to dominate the market even though everything they make is crap.

The competition, on the other hand, reminds me of a guy I knew back in the 70s. He had this old beat up Chevy, ran like a fine clock. Blow the doors off of anything on the road. Mechanically prefect from one end to the other. It was also four different shades of primer and you had to crawl through the windows to get in.

Re:The name of the game...

[phliar]

Many, many years ago I worked in an auto body shop. The owner of the shop had a simple rule, it didn't matter what went into the repair job. For all he cared you could fill a hole in a quarter panel with moldy donuts and used up steel wool pads, just as long as the end result appeared completely professional to the customer.

An apt analogy. Micros**t products are like a car made of moldy donuts and used up steel wool pads that looks good.

It's nice if my car looks good, but there other things that are a little more important -- for instance the car should work and it shouldn't just blow up when I'm trying to get to work. (Not that it should blow up when I'm heading for the mountains.)

Re:The name of the game...

[SideshowBob]

There are the same number of ways to rename a file on the mac as there are on windows, they just happen to be different:

select and then hit 'enter'
or click-pause-click in the name
or select then get info (command-i, or right click and select get info in the context menu) and type the name into the name field

vs.

select then hit F2
or click-pause-click in the name
or select then get properties (don't know the key equiv, I use the context menu) and type the name into the name field

The differences seem trivial to me. And the Mac way has been the way it is for 22 years, several of which were years where there was no Windows way at all.

Re:The name of the game...

[stewbacca]

you could fill a hole in a quarter panel with moldy donuts and used up steel wool pads, just as long as the end result appeared completely professional to the customer.

And this, my friends, is why so many people hate Microsoft. They use Linux or Mac OS X for the first time and realize they've been using a computer stuffed with donuts and steel wool their entire lives and feel a bit, well, raped.

Finder & UI

[Midnight Thunder]

It is interesting to note that they give the top five positions to the Finder. The Finder needs a lot of attention, and currently it doesn't be getting anything more than tweaks. I think the Finder is the one application that deserves a make over. Considering how much it is used it should not be an after-thought. BTW I would be interested in hearing what other pet peeves there are about the Finder.

As to UI consistency I really believe that Apple should work on this. If they want to offer different Window textures, then they should make it available at the system level and not make each program look like someone wanted to share with the world their skin of the day. It kinda makes me think of selling a Mercedes, using wood venere finish in the front and then using cheap plastic finish in the back seat.

Inconsistent User Interface? Uuuuh no.

[zaqattack911]

Idiots spreading FUD as usual. At least with regard to their "example" of inconsistent user interface. Just because the friggin color scheme is diffent... actually not even... brush metal versus gun metal? Give me a break. UI issues are usually related to buttons being in the wrong place, behavioral changes etc... What do you expect? new apps coming out now to look exactly the same as ones from 1999? Idiots.

Re:Inconsistent User Interface? Uuuuh no.

[sofla]

This was the only point in the article I agreed with - the rest of the points were basically "make it more like Windows". Apple really does need to pick a UI theme and stick with it - they've been going downhill since the half-assed introduction of "brushed metal" appeared in Panther. C'mon Apple, we know the window manager is at least somewhat aware of themes, given that there are tools like Unsanity's Metallifizer that let us fix your goofs.

And don't even get me started on the new iTunes interface... it just sucks. Yet another theme, to introduce a slightly different shade of grey, and loses the "both arrows at both ends" scrollbar option in the process.

Re:Inconsistent User Interface? Uuuuh no.

[Tankko]

Why do you have to call people "idiots"? You bring up good points, why bring it all down with insults. The Internet is too full of angry rude people already.

Spotlight Issues - Booleans

[teamhasnoi]

How about a real NOT in Spotlight? I know there's a nice lengthy command to do it, and this but it's hardly Mac-like. I'd like to search Spotlight like I search Google. There are a few 3rd party apps out there, but none make as it easy as it should be. If I want to find something that has a dash (or other characters in it, I'm out of luck.

Will this be non-dev mode?

[Midnight Thunder]

No additional widgets required. Just open Terminal and do this

defaults write com.apple.dashboard devmode YES

After that, press F12 and start dragging widget.. then (while still dragging) press F12 again and drop widget on the desktop.

Thanks for that. Now just to see if they can make that offical. Actually it would be nice to have side bar like in Windows Vista to arrange them, and that application are forced to respect when zooming to full size.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[MoneyT]

Then set it once. The maximize button toggles between two window settings, user defined (although sometimes this means last size on last close) and fit-to-content. So, for example, by default, my terminal window opens as a little window rather than full size. The first time I opened it, I made it full sized. Now every time I open terminal, when I click maximize, it returns it to my previously defined full size.

One thing...

[dema]

Most of the crap listed and the stuff posted by readers is the result of people being frustrated by OS X not doing something they expect, and giving up. But that's to be expected.

Anyway, there was one reader comment that I 100% agree with:

2. When powering down a MacBook or Powerbook it should be possible to physically close the screen right after having pushing the Ok button without having to wait that it completely shuts down.

Now if someone tells me there's an easy way to make that work, I will be both embarrassed and ecstatic (:

Or get a firewire external drive...

[alispguru]

... install the OS on it and run from that, and use the internal drive as backup. Lots less intrusive on your not-really-meant-to-be-opened Mac Mini, and gets you almost as much performance boost as installing an expensive fast notebook drive.

Spotlight Issue

[ajdowntown]

When I am looking for a file in spotlight, I usually want to know where the file is located, so I can open it up in an application. Right now, the only way to do that is to show all the files found, then then do some additional clicking. Too much, I wish spotlight would show me where the file was located on the main search screen, say like when you moused over the file in spotlight, it would give the path. Or, one click would show the path, two clicks to actually open the file/directory

Some of these are soluble... with extra software.

[argent]

#15 - MenuCalendarClock, or a variety of other similar programs.

#14 - Konfabulator/Yahoo Widgets or Amnesty. I use Konf/Yahoo Widgets. The problem with Amnesty is that Dashbord widgets are CPU hogs. Putting them in their own layer means you don't have to care because they're only running a small part of the time.

#13 - I've used a combination of applications working together to make the middle mouse button bring up the window menus as a context menu, but Apple should ABSOLUTELY make contextual menus available from the menu bar the way Services are, and make the main menus and Services available with contextual menus. There's five places that are close to the mouse under Fitt's Law, and the fifth is... where the mouse is right now. :)

#12 - The Dock needs a lot more work than this. In NeXTstep the Shelf (the equivalent of the right half of the Dock) was a real place... you could drag documents into it and out again, so that it provided an intermediate place to "pause" a drag and drop operation while you shuffled windows. The "Poof" is cute, but it's a bad user interface design... if you want to trash a Docked object, the trash is right there.

I use XShelf for this.

#11 - If anyone knows of software that fixes this, I would love to hear of it.

#10 - I used to use third party apps, but now I just have a folder containing aliases pointing to the system and personal application folders, and certain places in the Library, in the Dock. And, yes, this could be made a lot better.

#9 - "The rest of the world long since accepted that IBM makes the best keyboards" - Indeed. I would dearly love to be running OS X on a Thinkpad instead of a Macbook, mostly for this very reason. (Yes, I know that's Lenovo now, but the principle's still valid)

#8 - CUPS MUST DIE

#7 - The low level user interface isn't even internally consistent on the Mac. Every application has its own UI for configuring hotkeys - this should be a single "hotkeys and input" item in the Preferences, that lets you assign ANY key or corner combination to any application using the new "input manager" they create to implement this.

#6 - There's a million apps for this, and none should need to exist. Plus... laptop fan controls, keyboard illumination, sleep/hibernate behaviour, and all the rest of the laptop configuration crap that you shouldn't haveto deal with but in the real world you all too often do.

#5, #4, #3, #2, #1 - Finder is two separate programs that don't work well together. The old OS 9 Finder should be pulled out and restored fully for the benefit of the folks who like a spcial Finder, and the old NeXT File manager should be pulled out and restored fully for those of us who prefer a file browser.

On the reader peeves:

#1 - If I select shut down, and some application wants to know if I really want it to close, give me a window that says "yes, kill it and the rest of the pig-dogs, I WANT TO SHUT DOWN NOW". In fact that should be a button on the "shut down" dialog. "Cancel, Shutdown, Kill the pigdogs". Same with "sleep". And give me an option to go into safe sleep AND power off in a single operation (you could call it Hibernate :) ).

#2 - It's in there. Almost. RETURN on a file SHOULD put you into edit on the file name. Except when it doesn't. See points #5 through #1 in the previous section. :)

#3 - YES. Steve, old man, nobody kicked sand in your face for putting two buttons on the NeXT mouse. It's time to give up on this whole passive-aggressive single-button-mouse thing. See also "putting OS X on a Thinkpad". You got IBM japan to help you out on one of the Powerbooks (3400, I think)... you can do it again. Nobody will call you a wuss.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Fred_A]

twm, which largely pre-dates the Mac, didn't have any sort of maximise button (it had an iconify button). You had to use the resize button to change the size of a window. Although you could probably customise it to use a key binding instead (haven't used it in ages).
Was mwm the first one with a maximise button ?

A touch, a touch, I do confess it

[MarkusQ]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

Not that your post was an example of that, or anything :-)

*smile* You got me dead to rights. Any defense I might try to mount would only make it worse.

--MarkusQ

My counter-list

[SanityInAnarchy]

I realize I'm getting here late, but I may as well give it a shot:

As far as we can tell, there's no way to Cut a file in Finder.... The Finder does make it relatively easy to perform drag-and-drop moves, but there are times when that can be awkward, especially on smaller-screen Macs. In that case, being able to cut a file in one window, navigate to another window, and paste the file there is a handy alternative.

It's a bit clunky, but from what I can tell, even on a smaller-screen Mac:

• Drag it to the Dock, next to the trash. This is like "cut".
• Navigate to where you want to paste it.
• Hold the Command (Apple) key and drag it from the Dock to where you want it. This is like "paste".

This strikes me as far more intuitive than cut/paste, although it's annoying to have to use the mouse, and dropping it next to the trash (as opposed to IN the trash) can be hard when you have a full-ish Dock.

On the other hand, I don't ever use cut/paste, because that strikes me as much worse. With text, when I "cut", the text disappears into the clipboard. With files, when I "cut", the file changes a different color to let me know what file it was -- but it stays put until I "paste". It also seems a lot more dangerous to forget what you "cut" in the first place than it would be with text -- you could end up trying to paste a movie to a floppy disk.

changes you make (such as file renames) don't always dynamically update already open Windows. If at all possible, Apple should make the Finder dynamically update 100% of the time.

I have never noticed these changes not dynamically update on a Tiger machine. I wish they would be more specific about where it doesn't update.

The process of renaming files is highly mouse-centric on the Mac. There's no F2 option (as there is on Windows) that lets you select the file and press F2 to expose the filename-editing mode.

This guy apparently didn't try. Instead of F2, you press enter -- it does exactly the same thing.

The annoying thing is, I'm used to pressing enter to launch the file or app -- this is now command+o.

Secondary Mouse Button. My number one pet peeve is that Macintosh notebook computers only have one mouse button.

Seconded. I actually want three, but I could live with two -- at least then I could chord them for a third button on Linux.

Yes, I know about cmd+click and holding the button down. It's not the same.

I actually do most of my mousing from the touchpad, because I'd rather not have to unplug the mouse from my desktop computer and take it with me, and because I've learned to use the keyboard for so much. So actually, the Mighty Mouse -- and for that matter, any USB mouse -- is pretty useless for me on my Powerbook.

Now, for a couple of things that weren't mentioned:

1. Open up. I'd love it if OS X became completely open source. And really, why not? Apple is supposedly a hardware company -- if their hardware really is that much better (and I like a lot of that hardware), they should be willing to open up their software completely. If they are really a software company, then they should at least support running OS X on non-Apple hardware, even if they still sell it.
2. Provide an officially supported package manager. The .app folders take up more space than including actually shared libraries, and a package manager makes it sane to try to manage dependencies like that. Also, it'd be nice if "Software Update" worked for all the software on my Mac, not just Apple products.
3. Make it themable. I don't particularly care right now, but it would be nice if both the brushed metal and the plastic-y interfaces could have custom skins.
4. Support more customizable power modes. When I close the lid, it should immediately sleep, not suspend-to-both -- the disk should be parked, after all, I ca

Pretty laughable

[Tom]

#15: True, but how often do you really need today's date? For me, that's once every few days and it really isn't much of a problem to move to top-right and click on the time.

#14: Stay away from the f&%$ing desktop! It's enough that my real-world desktop is messy. The #1 windos insanity is the cluttered desktop every other user has. I've seen more than enough windos desktops that were literally filled with icons. And the worst thing to put on a desktop is interactive elements ("widgets"). Why? Because they'll always be covered by some window. In the best case, I have to shuffle my windows around to access it.
Nope, no way. Dashboard is pretty good, because I can still see the desktop (with all windows), so I can read the IP, number or other data I want to enter into a widget. And it's only there when I need it, not running in the background all the time.

#13: Ok, what are they talking about? My Finder has context menus.

#12: Someone didn't get either the Dock nor Expose. Dude, what you want is Expose and it does a great job at giving you an overview of all the open documents you've got - either in total or per application, whatever you prefer. The Dock's job is a different one and I'd rather have it do one job well than twenty jobs shabby.

#10: Please go into a corner and die quietly. Leave the Dock uncluttered, you fools! Trying to shove everyone of the 500 small tools you have installed into one menu is exactly why the windos "Start" menu is the craphola it is. In case you've been living under a rock for the past few years: You can use Spotlight to very quickly find and launch your non-common apps, or install Quicksilver, which does an even better job and is by far the best way to start apps invented, ever (Linux users: Katapult on KDE stole the idea, though it's not as feature-complete).

#8: Err. Are we talking about the same OSX here? Ok, I only setup one printer... Well, actually I didn't, OSX did everything for me. Nothing confusing about setting it up at all. I've had more trouble getting USB mice to work under windos.

#2: So you don't like consistency? You know like "cut" doesn't make much sense on a file? "Cut this file" only makes sense to windos users. It makes sense for document parts, but not for files. "Move" is what you're looking for and that's what drag&drop does. This is actually a very fine example of Apple sticking to what makes sense instead of porting metaphers into contexts where they lose meaning.

#1: And this is your #1 problem? Err... yeah. Right. Seriously, if this is the worst thing that's wrong with OSX, then thanks for the compliment and for agreeing that OSX is about 25 years ahead of windos.

And the user comments don't get any better. #1 was already answered by the editors. #2: Hey dude, if you manually rename long lists of files more than once in your life, then you've got a non-computer issue. This is where you use scripting, you know? Or a nice commandline. Ok, mmv isn't default installed on OSX, but it's easy to emulate. And #3: Thank you. I also think windos sucks because it only supports 2 mouse buttons and I've always used at least 3, more often 5 on all the Unix systems. Then again, depending on your target population, it might well be a feature. I know from personal experience that your mum will have trouble with two mouse buttons. The Mighty Mouse is the only solution for everyone - for my mum it has one button and that's all she needs. For me, it has 4 buttons and a 2D scrollball.

Re:Pretty laughable

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but how often do you really need today's date? Every day, fuckball.

I've seen more than enough windos desktops that were literally filled with icons. Dirty desktops ain't dark-side only...Duh!

Ok, what are they talking about? My Finder has context menus. Does it have Services? What part of 'fully enable' don't you understand, lamer?

"Cut this file" only makes sense to windos users. UNFORGIVABLY WRONG!
I'd kill YOU to get a proper Cut/Paste in the Finder.

I love my Mac, yet I hate fanboys like you. You're holding us down, man.

Re:Pretty laughable

[dr_turgeon]

I actually need to check the date a couple times a day. I'm getting old...

Re: OS X 10.5 "in the can" .....

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Yeah, and I'm still wating for that 4K78 internal build with debug flags turned off!

Just kidding ;)

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Swift2001]

I use Windows in the office, and, sadly, Explorer for the web. You can set the windows anyway you like, it's true, even make Explorer the full screen if you want. But then, any web site seems capable of popping up a window of any size, taking over my preference, and it is nearly impossible to change. I know, I've done web searches. The fix is of the "open the window, open another one, go to the first, maximize it, spit in the wind, turn around three times, and bang! You're-- Well, it still opens in that little window that the Poker/Porn/Pirate site made it be. So I think it's a GOOD thing that, if you have a dock, the window won't expand, and I've never come to a web site that changed my preferences. In the first versions of OS X, Apple apps weren't that sophisticated. But if you want an app that allows you to write on a full screen, with green type, just like the old Apple II days, try this: WriteRoom, from HogBay software. http://www.hogbaysoftware.com/product/writeroom But here's a tip: set the dock preference to "disappear." Then click the green light. Bingo! Full screen now means you can't see the dock, either. Of course, now, every time you point your cursor near the bottom, the dock comes up. I know, ugly and annying. Same reason I don't use this option in (*&&&%%%% Windows.

Make a Better Server...

[w33t]

This is a timely article, seeing as I have just returned to work after performing a complete reinstall of our companies XServe last evening.

This is the second catastrophic failure we've experienced within a year. The first involved our XServe Raid array passing-on. Yes, a RAID 5 array loses a disk and suddenly cannot rebuild and cannot be accessed. How is this possible? It's RAID 5 with parity. Parity people!

The best part is, this was not a physical disk failure either. I tested the physical disk and it was, and continues to be, absolutely fine. The data just died! The array FAILED!

Then, last night, the system volume which resides on a little RAID 1 mirror becomes corrupted. Once again, not physical issue - the disk is healthy. The array simply FAILED!

And all this happens despite routine maintenance.

Let's not get started on the weekly running of Applejack because of font cache corruption issues, or the fact that my brother's Mac mini suddenly wouldn't recognize any logon information (until we could run magical Applejack on it again).

If you ask me, OS X is Windows 98 dressed in XPs clothing.

Most of the points raised are wrong

[angel'o'sphere]

15. No Date Displa
Just go into the controll field and enable date display in the menu bar ... easy. I have it in a way that date is displayed when I click on the time.

13. Inconsistent Use of Context Menus This should be explained more, my Mac has context menues in the Finder, and AFAIK you can't switch them off, so the author should have them as well, so what exactly is he missing?

12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock
He is very unclear what he wants. I don't really understand what he complains about.

9. Backspace and Delete Keys.
Yeah, that should be fixed, thats realy anoying!

8. Printer Setup
ROFL .... you attack a printer and print, there is no setup for a printer needed in general. So what again does the author mean? The rare case where you have to install a driver for the printer?

7. Inconsistent User Interface.
That makes no sense to me, 3 different apsp SHOULD look different, but behave the same, and that they do. OTOH, I liek iTunes with the brush metal look far more and I find it anoying that I can't choose the themes for the apps my self.

5. Managing Finder's Columns View, Problem No. 1.
Well, having a column seperatore on top (overlapping, by having a slitter going from top till bottom) of the scrollbar won't be good. So you could have both close to each other, but that would waste space. So your final proposal to have a drag handle for the column seperator on top and on bottom makes sense.

4. Managing Finder's Columns View, Problem No. 2.>
This is a typical windows user request. No I don't want the windows I use always to macical adjudt something in them. I judt want them plain as I defined/opend them. I can't get why some one might demand it different? Does your break on your car adjust in size depending on your speed? No, it stays the same, you have to adjust your looking/sensing, your anticipation to your speed. No good reason to change any control in your car because of some wiered attribute.

And now the numbering gets spoiled ....

2. Renaming Isn't Easy
Well, in Windows its not easy either: how the heck should *I* know that F2 opens a rename dialog? From what do you know that? But you are right a "rename" menu is missing.

3. Secondary Mouse Button.
Attach an USB mouse, like everyone does.

-------------

The points I did not comment on, the author has a point. But funnyly stuff thats really anoying he did not mention or not notice ;D like the way how the HOME and END buttons work (or don't work), the fact that every application uses differnt arrow + modifier keys to move to the end of a line, next word etc.

Meanwhile you should have learned: the Mac has for every interaction only ONE spot of control. If you need more than downlaod one of the various free / shareware solutions giving you more controll over your Dock, Windows resizing, Scrolling etc.

I for my part would of course welcome if you could resize a window in all 4 corners, but I dont really miss the fact that I can't. Looking on a UI like Vista or linux desktops, I'm really glad that my screen space is saved and not cluttered with oversized and to many controlls.

One change: back to NEXTSTEP

[SumoRoti]

One change could be really cool: restoring the 'Workspace Manager'; this good old file manager exists in Rhapsody 5 and I don't understand why Apple decided to build MacOSX on the buggy Carbon-app Finder. WorkspaceManager.app gives us the Shelf extension that permits to do two big things:

1. using a drag&dropping move/copy of files between directories with no need of opening another file manager window.
2. eradicating the desktop. All icons are always available through the file viewer. I never understand the use of the classic desktop icons on Mac, Windows, Atari, SunOS... whose any windows can mask.

I hope GNUstep GWorkspace.app will be ready to do that soon because Finder.app get me crazy especially with asynchronous NFS automounts.

List View

[Count Fecal]

A Finder preference to open every new finder window in List View as default.

Wow, this is persnickety.

[Peganthyrus]

I felt some need to respond to this picky list of peeves in a peevish point-by-point fashion.

15. No date display.
Yeah, this bugs me. I use MenuCalendarClock to fix this, and get a hint at the stuff I've put in iCal without having to run it. But a "show the date" option in the clock prefs would be great.

14. Widgets can't be placed on the desktop.
Whatever. A macosxhints.com entry on doing this is the third thing that comes up when I Google for 'widgets desktop'. And a couple more things on the first page point to a tool to make this easier. I've never had a desire to have widgets on the desktop, myself.

13. Inconsistent use of context menus.
I don't know what they're talking about here. I get a dozen or so options when I ctrl-click on something in the finder. I get a handful of options when I ctrl-click a link in Safari. iTunes has a pile of stuff when I ctrl-click on something. The functionality is there and it's up to the designers of each program to decide what's appropriate. But I'm more about keyboard shortcuts, so I never really use context menus on any system.

12. Documents and app instances on the Dock.
"the Dock isn't like the Windows taskbar, I want it to be like the Windows taskbar."
Click on an app in the Dock, and all its windows come to the front. What's the problem here?

11. Managing Windows Size.
As someone who went from the Amiga to the Mac, I've always found Windows' resize-everywhere behavior to be really, really annoying.

10. Accessing Applications.
Guys, I switched from OS9 to OSX about four years ago and said "okay, the Apple menu is gone, what takes its place?" Did some of you only switch from OS9 last week? Hit the Finder, apple-shift-A. All my apps. Right there. If I use something regularly I shove it in the Dock.

9. Backspace and Delete Keys.
Yeah, I wish I had a 'backspace' key on my laptop too. Can't argue with that.

8. Printer setup.
I never print stuff, so I dunno.

7. Inconsistent User Interface.
Yeah, I use Shapeshifter mostly to make Safari not metal.

6. Laptop Screen Dimming.
I haven't ever really noticed any of this.

5, 4, 3. Managing Finder's Columns View.
I've never really found any of this to be annoying.

2. Finder's Hobbled Cut Command.
"It doesn't work just like Windows, make it work just like Windows". Whatever. I don't think I've ever used cut and paste to move files in my whole life - it's always been by opening two windows and drag-and-drop.

1. Dynamic Finder Refresh.
I thought this got fixed in 10.4?

Reader Peeves:
1. Over-protective shutdown error trapping?
Whatever. I almost never shut down or restart my machine anyway. Sleep rules.

2. Renaming Isn't Easy.
"It should work just like Windows!"
Hit return while a file's selected. Things behave just like the described behavior of f2 on Windows.

3. Secondary Mouse Button.
Yes, dear, we know that Windows makes everything more complicated and you're confused because the Mac tries to avoid this.

Forgot one

[Joe The Dragon]

Open it up to all hardware

Re:Forgot one

[arifirefox]

then it wouldn't be level of control on the whole mac experience that makes a mac a mac. How about this idea: open the linux kernel so that everyone could checkin as they please. I'd rather let Linus make the decisions.

Re: OS X 10.5 "in the can" .....

[mehemiah]

I just wish they would do something about my biggest gripe with mac osx. the biggest thing i miss from os9, thats included in Windows and Linux consistently, is the fact that YOU CAN CHANGE THE COLOR SCHEME. I miss the themes of tangerine, strawberry, grape, and would appreciate maybe a black liquorish. Even Unsanity cant give me this. I dont want to have to pay Unsanity for something that should be free, that means sound scheme too.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[ronanbear]

Or what if I want to zoom in and then resize so that I can still see all of the document. On windows if I'm reading a pdf in zoom to fixed width mode and I maximize the window then the page zooms in so that there's no whitespace.

Perfectly easy to get a pdf to take up the full screen (-taskbar, scrollbar and toolbars). On OSX I have to drag the window to the top left. Manually resize the window and then rezoom. It takes a lot longer (if you're doing it often) when all you want to do is be able to read some text. Instead there's a green button which doesn't appear to do anything sometimes.

I like OSX but it is something I find very infuriating.

Re: OS X 10.5 "in the can" .....

[edp]

"As they've been releasing 10.5 beta updates to developers, they've been simultaneously releasing even newer builds for internal use only. Why do that unless you have some UI changes you're trying to keep a secret?"

Apple releases plenty of internal builds because there is a lot of work going on, and doing builds daily is a way of keeping on top of the latest work by various engineers. The compiler people make a change that the kernel people wanted, the kernel people add a new feature for the file system to use, the file system people use that to enable something that's been under development, then an application that wanted the feature changes, et cetera. Another reason for frequent builds is to get new code distributed to many people so that it is exercised and problems are discovered as quickly as possible. Apple releases only a few external builds because, I presume, they are much more work to manage, and they are generally better builds with more coordinated features and fewer problems. This is simply normal software development practice for complicated projects, so I am not saying anything particular about Apple.

I expect there are some features held back from the external releases to developers, and a UI change could be part of that, especially if it mostly cosmetic and does not affect programming interfaces, but largely those releases are simply done on occasion, and Apple tries to select a reasonably good build to release. (Some of the internal releases are quite, um, challenging to use.) One purpose for distributing releases to external developers is so they can work with API changes in time to prepare their software. Occasional releases are fine for that.

Note that I cannot fully say from actual knowledge how the external releases are constructed. Apple is very secretive and does have various projects that are undisclosed externally and internally, but I do not think external build releases being rarer than internal releases is a sign of this.

App bundles eliminate at least one issue

[Krishnoid]

And by the way, app bundles are the bomb. Sure, they use a little more disk space... but disk space is cheap. Think of your applications as a folder (which they literally are in the UNIX filesystem) that contain all of the stuff you need to run the app including configs in some apps.

This one mechanism (from NeXT, I think) makes doing 'amateur QA' trivial on MacOSX and onerous on Linux and Windows. Really, it's a pretty huge gulf between the two.

Testing a Firefox nightly: First, download the nightly from ftp.mozilla.org/.../latest-trunk.

Windows/Linux:

• Uninstall the old firefox app. Install the nightly. Find an anywhere from annoying to work-stopping bug. File the bug using another browser (or the nightly, if you can get that far). Uninstall the nightly. Reinstall your old copy of firefox. Continue work.
• Alternatively: Maintain a completely separate system. Uninstall old nightly. Install new nightly. Rather, rinse, repeat.

MacOSX:

• Mount nightly disk image. Drag nightly app bundle into /tmp. Type 'open /tmp/minefield.app'. Use minefield.app until you find a bug. Quit minefield.app if necessary. Type 'open /Applications/Firefox.app'. File bug. Keep working.
• Next day, after a reboot, or whenever you feel like it: rm -rf /tmp/minefield.app . Rinse, lather, repeat.
• Most importantly: everything prior to 'use minefield.app until you find a bug' can be done in an entirely automated manner from a single script. This includes 'installing' extensions into the nightly app bundle!
• Another most importantly: you need to make a stock trade using a stable browser, or don't feel like doing amateur QA today? Quit minefield.app and open firefox.app. Feeling generous with a whole couple hours of your time? Quit Firefox.app and open minefield.app.
• Another most importantly: nightly corrupted your preferences? Toss it, pull ~/Library/Preferences/org.mozilla.firefox.plist and ~/Library/Application Support/Firefox from backups, and fire up stable firefox. A modification to the script above could save off these directories every time a new nightly is fired up.

the one thing that really bothers me..

[blackpete11]

The one thing, I may have missed it mentioned is... closing windows vs. quiting an application in OSX!
There should be a button on the top of a window (I hate to have a fourth... but) toQUIT AN APPLICATION! I have been to many of my clients houses and they mention that their performance is slow. I look down at the dock and they have 15 applications running, but are not using any of them. Most users don't understand the difference between closing a window and quiting and application.

i know it speeds up opening common applications again, but give users an easy GUI way to quit an application!

Re:the one thing that really bothers me..

[Guy Harris]

I have been to many of my clients houses and they mention that their performance is slow. I look down at the dock and they have 15 applications running, but are not using any of them.

The real fix for that is to have those apps not burn up CPU time if they don't have any windows open and don't have anything useful to do if they don't have any windows open. Yes, they still chew up swap space, so they might fragment the swap file and cut paging performance, but I suspect those apps chewing CPU up when idle is a significant part of the problem. Unfortunately, that's almost certainly not something you or your clients can fix directly; the best you can do is yell at the vendors of the apps, and shut those apps down when idle.

Speaking of apps chewing up CPU when you think they're idle, note that if you have a Safari window open to a page with an animated GIF or other form of "attract mode" on that page, it's probably chewing up CPU doing that. I can't speak for Firefox or IE or Konqueror or..., but they might have the same issue. Another reason to hate animated Web pages - especially if they're pop-unders, so you don't even know they're there.

Re:the one thing that really bothers me..

[dloose]

I hate this kind of reply because it boils down to my anecdotal evidence versus yours, but I routinely have about 10 apps open at once and I don't experience much in the way of slow down. This is on a 667 G4 with 1 GB of RAM. The one thing I've noticed is that OS X is more RAM-hungry than Windows or Linux. I know this is hardly the solution most people want to hear after they've already paid a (ever-diminishing) premium for their Mac, but maybe you should advise your clients to install more RAM. Anyway, Windows isn't exempt from the close != quit phenomenon. I'm typing on a ThinkPad right now and there are 21 icons in my system tray. At least 10 (arguably as many as 15, but some of them are very small applications) of them represent applications for which I have no window open. What's worse, the default behavior for XP is to autohide infrequently used icons, so people won't even know the applications are running. Adding a "quit" application widget is a pretty bad idea in my opinion. I think you just need to explain the difference to your clients. There are two ways to interact with the application instead of a window belonging to the application: The Dock icon and the application menu. You can quit an application using either.

Re:the one thing that really bothers me..

[jubei]

What's even worse is that sometimes closing the window does close the application, but usually not. System Preferences is an example.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[slim-t]

shouldn't've

I had my doubts about that being a word, but it is in the http://urbandictionary.com/

XCode

[GWBasic]

It's too difficult to develop Mac applications. Apple's XCode is missing features that Windows C# developers take for granted, like Intellisense, inline documentation, and autocompletion. Cocoa uses a complex set of connections, outlets, and actions that are avoided in Microsoft Visual C# by simple multicast events.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Yocto Yotta]

Funny, I'm reading your comment in Windows using Firefox (with the browser window fully maximized of course) on my 17" widescreen dell laptop, and I'll be damned if I even have one pica of white space to the left or right. The benefit is that seven lines of text in a non-maximized window is only two or three lines of text in my maximized window. Your comment maximized? One line per sentance. Because of this, the page is shorter, and I can see more information at once. Not everything needs to be maximized, but a lot of stuff benefits from it.

THAT SAID . . . I'm a big OS X fan, and I can tell you all it's really freakin' easy to drag your window to "maximized" size. Once you've done it once, you can switch back and forth between large and smaller window size just as easy as Windows. I don't get what everyone's complaining about . . . have any of you used OS X?

Re:If number 15 is wrong should I care about the r

[double_ooh]

If given enough space Windows will display the date and time and day of the week. I use a sidebar style start menu...
Um... if you are joking, I apologize, but did you not notice that the TFA was about problems with the OSX interface, not problems with the Windows interface?

Re:7. Motif is not user interface, etc

[penultimateman]

"You don't feel that the "look" part of "look and feel" matters to a UI? You think that "feel" is all that defines a UI?" - what i'm saying is that the iTunes brushed metal facade really has nothing to do with its user interface. (It's not really made out of metal [WINK!]) "The point is that they are gratuitously different having nothing to do with their function." "Why? How does making the apps different for the sake of difference improve usability or intuition?" my point is that things can look different and still have the same function. if the 'look' gets in the way of usability, it's no longer just a 'look'. the 'look' of an application should be totally divorced from usability. "Since when is iTunes "responsive". It's slow as a dog." - hell yeah, it's slow. i mean 'responsive' in that the application responds to a user actions and that feedback is given from the app. Arizona sediments respond to the Colorado River by eroding away into a canyon.

A more fundamental problem with dual monitors

[StreetStealth]

As far as I'm concerned, MacOS doesn't really support two monitors. Why? Because the menu bar appears on only one monitor.

If I'm working on an application on the "secondary" monitor, I have to return my mouse to the other screen to use the menu, and depending on the app, I may use the menu very frequently -- logging some very annoying and completely unnecessary mouse mileage. So I just work on the main screen, making the second monitor effectively useless. It's a sad thing when your UI makes virtual desktops preferable to multiple monitors.

Re:A more fundamental problem with dual monitors

[tetsuo29]

I'm pretty much a total mac fanboy, but I have to concede this point. I never tried multiple monitors on a Mac until a few years ago when I got my first iBook and discovered that a simple firmware adjustment was all that was needed in order to allow spanning instead of mirroring when hooking up an external monitor. I was really excited at first, but soon learned how annoying it is to have the menu bar only available on one of the screens- especially when you want to have one app running on one screen and another on the other.

For single monitors, I still believe that the stationary menu bar at the top of the screen is a superior UI. If you don't believe this, you need to spend some time observing how many users of Windows/Linux keep every window maximized- they are in effect simulating the stationary menu bar effect. However, for multiple monitors, the menu bar in the window paradigm of Windows/X11 is currently better. I think that Apple could easily fix this by having the Mac's menu bar move from screen to screen with the mouse. They could even make it's appearance 'ghosted' on the screens where the mouse currently is not. Placing a menu bar on each screen would then allow different apps to be in the foreground on different monitors. I've made suggestions along these lines on the OS X feedback page, but, sadly they have yet to realize the brilliance of what I'm telling them. ;-]

I have a feeling that they've concluded that there is not enough multiple monitor use to warrant spending time coming up with a more elegant solution.

Re:A more fundamental problem with dual monitors

[stewbacca]

Learn the menu shortcuts.

Re:A more fundamental problem with dual monitors

[rogergregory]

Right. In 1990ish I put 6 monitors on a macII 1 color and 5 19inch monocrome, just because we had them around and unused that week. AMost of the monitors were just unusable, even if all you wanted to do was open 27 pages of online documentation. The only way to do is was to open the document on the screen with the toolbar and drag it to the right monitor. But to try to do something other than scroll or enter text, forget it. Another case where optimizing for one case totally screws up other cases. Here we have one that worked well in 1984 with a tiny monitor, but as display technology evolved became less useful, then a real impediment.

In a way it surprises me because macs had multiple screen capabilities built into them from the macII onward.

Yes, but...

[sean.peters]

The Apple mouse doesn't have three buttons. I spent a whole $9 for a Logitech optical wheel mouse, and all the buttons (including the scroll wheel) work just fine with no configuration.

I have a Powerbook, and I don't want to plug a damn external mouse into it. I want to use the touchpad, and I want said touchpad to be more useful... by including a second freakin' mouse button. I get tired of being thwarted by the one button disciples, whose reasons for opposing the second button seem to be variants on the theme of "but we've always done it this way". It's a lot easier for people who only want to use button to just ignore any other buttons, than it is for me to have to go find some software utility to simulate the other buttons.

And don't start with "you can just use Cmd-click" (or whatever the key combo is) to simulate the second button. Sometimes I'm doing something with my other hand - um, y'know, like holding my coffee cup. Yeah, that's it.

Sean

Re:Yes, but...

[ptomblin]

And don't start with "you can just use Cmd-click" (or whatever the key combo is) to simulate the second button. Sometimes I'm doing something with my other hand - um, y'know, like holding my coffee cup. Yeah, that's it.

Sean

If your Powerbook isn't new enough to have the two finger drag, you can install iScroll which gives you the same functionality. As well as drag, it allows you to put one finger on the touchpad while you click the button to act as the second button.

In other words, yes, that used to be a legitimate complaint about Macs, but it hasn't been for over a year.

Re:Yes, but...

[stewbacca]

Thanks for the iScroll hint. Most people who complain about no second mouse button don't realize you just have to turn it on in the system prefs (MacBooks). Yeah, dumb that it isn't on by default, but oh well. My wife doesn't like it or click-drag or two finger scroll, so to each their own. At least it is an option.

Re:Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

But you bought the Powerbook anyway, so I guess it wasn't a deal-breaker for you.

While there are valid criticisms of various design decisions, "it doesn't work the way that I, personally want/expect it to" is not one of them, unless you, personally, have comissioned the device for your own and exclusive personal use. You can't expect a company to tailor its products to your particular needs to the neglect of their larger customer base, nor can you expect a personalized design and still take advantage of economies of scale.

I have a two button logitech mouse attached to my Powerbook when it is docked and in use as a desktop machine. When I take it on the road, I use the trackpad. I like the scroll wheel and the second mouse button, and it would have been great if my old Powerbook had the scrolling trackpad that the newer ones have, but I like even more the application designs that follow from the assumption that a second mouse button is not guaranteed to be available. I think that Apple has made the best possible compromise for usability among all of their users: most users don't have to worry about figuring out a two-button mouse and none of us suffer from the bad application design that many developers think they can get away with if they can assume a right mouse button. Those who want multi-button mice can buy them as add-ons or, in the newest notebooks, use the enhanced track pad features. The only people who are really unhappy are the small minority who insist that a notebook must have two physical mouse buttons built in, that a desktop must ship with a two-button mouse by default, and for whom no compromise is possible. I think that the only reasonable thing to do is to ignore such a fringe group; people who insist on having things exactly tailored to their needs aren't going to be happy with any mass-produced product anyway.

Resize window

[Anonymous Coward]

The Worst is when I open a window on my 12" that was last opened on my cinema display- (hard drive windows, Illustrator files I moved with a jump drive) because they open cinema size and you can't get to the draggable tabs.

Consist yourself

[fm6]

The problem with UI inconsistencies is that they make you hunt around for the particular thing you need to click on. Obviously you're very good at that, so good you don't even notice the effort involved. That's not true for most people.

I mostly work on Windows, and whenever I switch to Mac, all the little GUI differences drive me up the wall. And yet I know plenty of people who've gone from Windows to Mac without effort. People are different, that's all.

Even on Windows, the fashion for using "skinned" UIs drives me crazy, because it means I have to hunt for UI components I should be able to access without thinking. Obviously there are people who have no trouble remembering where the buttons and menu bars are in all their different applications, and they would seem to be the ones driving UI design these days. So eye candy is valued over usability. That's pretty frustrating for many users.

Re:Consist yourself

[644bd346996]

You seem to be talking about inconsistencies between platforms, namely windows and mac os x. The actual subject is the differences between the looks of the various apple applications that are bundled with a mac. You totally missed the point of stefan's comment, which is that there is a difference between "look" and "feel" and that, while the "look" of apple applications may vary, the "feel" is perfectly consistent. When the "feel" of a user interface is consistent, the layout and behavior are consistent and you will not need to hunt for buttons unless the "look" is severely distracing, to the tune of "OMG PONIES!"

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[MouseR]

The zoom button is actually controlled by the application and not the Window Manager. This is why you have different behavior depending on the application your running.

This was particularly true for true-Carbon applications. MetroWerks' PowerPlant Carbon framework, used by many applications (still today) kinda standardize the actual behavior and Cocoa under OS X also makes this somewhat more predictable.

But applications can still control the size they can zoom to.

This is why you wont find a system-wide switch to control this behavior.

Hiding and unhiding the dock

[kidtwist]

I'd like to be able to hide the dock and then not have it come back up every time the mouse is at the bottom of the screen. That gets annoying fast. Instead I'd like it to only come up when the mouse is at the bottom of the screen AND I press a certain combination of keys (such as shift-Cmd, or something else).

Re:Hiding and unhiding the dock

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Consider another location for the dock. Most of the time people who hide the dock are trying to save screen real estate and for most users vertical space is more important than horizontal. Try just leaving it open all the time on the right or left side of the screen. I, personally, find it much less of a hassle.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Gilmoure]

Ok, that did expand my terminal window to cover most of 'one' monitor, but the boss can still see my naughty desktop pic through the terminal window. Why did Apple have to make windows transparency settings available?

Classic feature to bring back

[cultrhetor]

Window shade. Handy little bugger that didn't require me to minimize, then go to the damn dock every time I want to see what's behind a window.

#14 is wrong...

[7Prime]

You CAN put Widgets on the desktop, and without the use of any 3rd party hacks or widgets. All you do is start dragging a widget, hit your dashboard hotkey (or screen corner, in my case), and boom, you're in normal view with your widget. This is very handy when taking notes, and transfering them back and forth to stickies. These still float on top, but I'd be scared of widgets that didn't float on top, anyway.

No, the one thing I really want to see, that Windows does a great job at is making Open and Save dialogs fully functional Finder windows: you can dragon drop to and from them, delete items from them, etc. which is really handy when you're wanting to organize a folder and save something to a folder all at the same time. This is the one noticable UI advantage I've seen in Windows, that I wish I had on the Mac side.

One small point, but not pertaining to myself so much, is that if you take a little time to set things up, with Expose, Dashboard, and other things, navigation is VERY fast, but the computer is really configured to YOUR style of navigation and operation. If someone else gets on your computer, they're immediately confused as to why all the windows fly away when they accidentally stick the mouse in the lower righthand corner, and getting to individual windows becomes a lot more of a pain. The windows task bar may not be as quick or elegant, but at least it's consistant all across the board. Getting on any windows computer, you know almost instantaniously how to navigate, but on OSX every interface setup dramatically changes the way you use it. I really like the customizability, but uncustomized, OS X is a little clunkier than Windows when uncustomized.

That's funny

[ProfessionalCookie]

I just thought "they [apple] should make option-zoom go into full screen mode" Then I scrolled down two lines and there was your comment. Funny I always tell people new to Macs just try what makes sense to you and it will probably work. I guess I'll return my PowerUser card now

Re:That's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

This does really odd things in Preview with multiple docs open. I can't even tell what it's trying to do.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Hes Nikke]

if you drop the slow, bloated crap that is now called Adobe Reader, and instead used Preview, you can just hit cmd-f to enter full screen mode.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[nine-times]

Personally, I don't really agree with this. I used to. When I used Windows dominantly, I always wanted to have my windows take up the whole screen. After using Macs for a while, I tend to use the "clutter to my advantage, letting pieces of windows hang out from behind foreground windows so I can move back and forth without constantly using Expose.

However, if the maximize button worked the way you want, i suppose it wouldn't really bother me. I just wouldn't really use it. Either way, I wish they'd just have it work consistently. Right now, what the button does depends on the application, which is needlessly confusing.

TFA Comment

[Thumper_SVX]

Well, I've commented on a few comments, but let me finally really comment on the article itself.

I can sum it up relatively quickly: The comments about Finder are pretty valid. Even as a Mac user I find Finder a little clunky and not perfect. Many of the comments I've seen online tend to echo this tendency, and there's a wide-ranging opinion that Finder should be replaced.

The rest of these? Well, it's not so much "15 things wrong with OSX" as a list of "15 things to make OSX more like Windows". Sorry, if you're not willing to learn then stick with what you know... you'll be happier in the long run. Someone who goes to a new OS and is not willing to learn the ways in which the OS is different than their previous OS of choice is asking for trouble, pain and heartache.

Re:TFA Comment

[argent]

"15 things to make OSX more like Windows".

Hardly. Windows contextual menus are fucked up too.

I don't want to make OS X contextual menus "more like Windows", I want to make them "right".

iTunes isn't a Mac OS X app

[MobyDisk]

iTunes suffers from the same problem many cross-platform applications do. They use their own controls for portability purposes, which makes them look strange, and act differently than the native OS.

Example:
I installed iTunes for Windows on a multimedia computer, and it is nearly unusable because it doesn't obey the operating system font-size settings consistently. I'll open a window that is small, but the controls are big. Or vice-versa. This problem has gotten worse in iTunes 7 and up. I'm surprised, because I thought lots of people would use iTunes in this type of environment.

My Thoughts As A Mac Geek...

[WiseWeasel]

My thoughts as a Mac geek:
15) (No date display): Agreed, there should be an option to display the date along with the time in the menubar.
14) (Widgets on desktop): Coming in Leopard, available through third party software now.
13) (Inconsistent contextual menus): Couldn't figure out what they were complaining about.
12) (Documents in the Dock): Hell no, they shouldn't add open documents to the Dock. It's cluttered enough as it is. Documents are fine in the Dock apps' contextual menu, or accessed by option-tabbing to the app you want, then option-~ to the window in the app, or simply via Exposé.
11) (Managing window size): Here, Apple should have a modifier key that enables this behavior. Like if the user holds down the command key, the border of the window the mouse is over can get a bit thicker, and they could resize from any edge.
10) (Accessing applications): Just make yourself a shortcuts folder in the Dock, with shortcuts to apps and documents you most frequently use. You can also put a folder in the dock with categorized shortcuts to your applications, to help find what you want quickly. Apple shouldn't do this for you; you just need to spend a bit of time customizing your computer to suit your needs.
9) (Backspace or delete): Yes, Mac notebook keyboards suck ass. Apple, figure out a way to add some more needed keys, make the arrow pad bigger and further away from the shift key (I know I'm not the only one to delete lines of text by accidentally hitting shift-up arrow by accident, instead of just the arrow key). The F-keys need some spacing in there as well.
8) (Printer setup screens): Printer setup screens are designed by the Printer manufacturers. Complain to them if you're not happy.
7) (Inconsistent user interface): M'eh, whatever... I'd say fixing the f'ing Finder takes priority...
6) (Laptop screen dimming): Agreed, need a setting somewhere to adjust this behavior.
5) (Grab points for Column resizing): M'ehm whatever... Maybe they could add more grab points with a modifier key... Otherwise, don't clutter the interface.
4) (Automatic resizing of columns): Bad idea. First of all, some names will always be too long. Second, when you browse through different levels of your folder hierarchy, the last thing you want is the columns constantly moving all over the place.
3) (Display bug in column view): That's a bug. Please provide steps to reproduce to Apple so they can fix it...
2) (Cut files in the Finder): This should be added.
1) (Finder refresh): Pretty sure this is usually handled properly. If there are cases where it's not, you should report them to Apple so they can fix it. I've never seen any lag in Finder refreshes since Tiger...

Re:My Thoughts As A Mac Geek...

[argent]

Apple should have a modifier key that enables this behavior.

No, please god, no more modifier keeys to memorize.

How do I

[sr1nath]

select the whole URL in Safari? If I want to enter a new url, I am selecting the current url with mouse (click-drag) and over writing new one? In windows, I just do ALT-D to select the url at once.

Also, is there a way to select text like SHIFT-ARROWKEY in windows?

Thanks

Re:How do I

[ioErr]

command-a, for select all

or

tripple-click on the url

or

control-a, control-k to kill the current url

or

open a new tab instead

Re:How do I

[russotto]

Also, is there a way to select text like SHIFT-ARROWKEY in windows?

Curiously enough, yes. It's "SHIFT-ARROWKEY".

Evaluation

[ProfessionalCookie]

15. No Date Display: Ok yeah, set the date format to display would be nice. I just glance at my iCal icon. 14. Desktop Widgets: I just Dashboard, Grab Widget, Undashboard and drop on my desktop. "Dev Mode?" it's a >defaults oneliner 13. Inconsistent Use of Context Menus: Have you ever used MacOS X context Menus? They're soooo contextual. If anything I vote for doing less in them. It would be nice to have a *.app/contents/context/ folder to store my own scripts that appear in Finder context items. I vote for more spacific context menus in toolbars (instead of "Customize toolbar...etc). But please don't muck up contextual menus like windows. Eak! 12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock: Stupid idea. Contextual menus are better (I don't even think I need to justify this- it's pretty obvious- you're asking for a Windows Taskbar). It would be nice to have to use a command-click to add/remove items from the dock. That would life easier. 11. Managing Window Size: I'm a big fan of my clean borderless windows. Try Zooom- that kind of integration would be welcome. And for those looking for Maximize...option-zoom. 10. Accessing Applications: That's what Spotlight is for. Or you could use Contextual Menus. Or better yet, integrate Quicksilver. 9. Backspace and Delete Keys: Quit being retarded. Fn-Delete is sufficient for a notebook. I use forward delete all the time; Especially Option-Delete. 8. Printer Setup: Explain. I plugged mine in an clicked Make Default. 7. Inconsistent User Interface: Did it ever occur to anyone that using different window art makes it way the heck easier to know what you're clicking on without paying attention? I like the various interface looks. Besides it's only inconsistent if you appraise it on Apple's written guidelines. If you put various windows next each other they fit together pretty well. 6. Laptop Screen Dimming: It happens in half the display sleep time. You can set it manually (or by script) using pmset. 5. Managing Finder's Columns View, Problem No1: If the whole column were a grab point it would interfere with scrolling operations. What you really want is smarter auto-width. 4. See #5 3. Managing Finder's Columns View, Problem No. 3: No idea what you're talking about. I'll throw in my own complaints though. How about sort-by for columns, and keeping the focused column in center (implement autoscroll left). And finally always expand the Save pane. No one wants to use that silly menu that only lists common folders. (this can be partially taken car of with a defaults write) 2. Finder's Hobbled Cut Command: Cutting files is stupid. How about a Shelf (available in Quicksilver). 1. Dynamic Finder Refresh: I agree. Rewriting the Finder would be a good starting point.

Re:Evaluation

[tgibbs]

Finder's Hobbled Cut Command: Cutting files is stupid. How about a Shelf

I agree; cutting is a bad solution to the problem. What if something goes wrong, and you never complete the paste, or you forget and copy something else and end up deleting a file you only wanted to move? I use Path Finder's shelf, and also find that to be a superior solution.

Re:Evaluation

[WiseWeasel]

You can do a timeout on the cutting function. If the file isn't pasted within 5 minutes, or another file is cut before the first is pasted, then the cut function is cancelled, and the file stays where it first was.

Re:Evaluation

[tgibbs]

You can do a timeout on the cutting function. If the file isn't pasted within 5 minutes, or another file is cut before the first is pasted, then the cut function is cancelled, and the file stays where it first was.

Then you have a situation in which "cut" means one thing in some applications and another thing in others--sometimes it really means "cut" but other times it means "mark as source for move (if you are fast enough)"

Re:Evaluation

[WiseWeasel]

True, but I don't see a problem with that. Most of the time, the user wouldn't know the difference (unless it's saving their ass). The alternative to enabling 'cut' for files in the Finder would be to have a drop zone 'shelf'-type thing that appears when you start to drag files. I would suggest on the left side of the screen be default (or right side if you keep your Dock on the left side), and it would just be a translucent light-colored zone where you can drop a file, then navigate to where you want to move it in a Finder window, and drag the file back from the shelf.

Re:Evaluation

[tgibbs]

The drop shelf in PathFinder is in the upper left corner of the PathFinder window, and works quite well. My only complaint with that program (which I use exclusively in place of Finder) is that the shelf is local to that window; I think that the shelf should be global to all Finder windows.

Re:Evaluation

[JLeslie]

Cutting files is stupid
...cutting is a bad solution to the problem

I'm fairly new to the Mac world, but I've really missed the ability to cut files. Windows has it, and it works pretty well, in fact, it's one of the few things that seems to work exactly as I'd expect: if the cut fails for some reason, the file is left alone. I don't see how this is 'stupid'.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[falconwolf]

I prefer to be able to see all my open windows at a glance and fullscreen mode blocks that. I can see how it might useful on a small screen (like on small laptop screens or older displays) but on larger screens it just hogs up all the screen space.

That's why I prefer dual monitors. On the smaller one I can have all the tools and such but have the main document take the whole screen on the larger monitor. Or have one document open on the smaller one so I can drag a selection to place in another document on the larger monitor. Likewise using just one monitor I prefer using the full screen to display a given document. If I want to switch to another doc or app I just "alt" + "tab", no muss no fuss.

Falcon

Resizing windows

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wish they would bring back the Next-style resize bar at the bottom of windows. In early internal releases of the OS X (just prior to OS X Beta) back in '98, windows had Nextstep-like resize bars. However, Jobs caved into pressure (there may have been technical or legacy reasons stemming from Carbon applications, but whatever it must have been enough to convince him) and restored the traditional resize thumb in the bottom corner. Biggest mistake EVAR.

OSXV

[combcox]

Shouldn't one of the fifteen changes be to rename from MacOSX to MacOSXV

Re:If number 15 is wrong should I care about the r

[ceoyoyo]

I'd actually prefer OS X drop the thing telling me it's Friday and just display the time.

How often do I need to know the date? It costs me one click to find it... well worth the savings of that bit of prime screen real-estate.

Re:If number 15 is wrong should I care about the r

[kinglink]

If you read TFA that you tell me to. Number 15 meantions windows. I don't have OSX so I can't tell you for sure if any of the critcism of that is valid but when he refers to windows I can damm well tell you if it's BS, and this one is an obvious one.

Why does Windows have a Maximize screen?

[theurge14]

If you want one single application taking up a full screen, doesn't it cease being "Windows" and become "DOS"?

Re:Why does Windows have a Maximize screen?

[rob_squared]

Because not everyone needs to have multiple apps open at once. Its pretty simple, different people use computes for different reasons.

Re:Why does Windows have a Maximize screen?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

no, I like having a single app take up the whole window if it's an app where i'm focused 100% on it. A Webbrowser, yes, an IM window, no.

Re:Why does Windows have a Maximize screen?

[tehcyder]

If you want one single application taking up a full screen, doesn't it cease being "Windows" and become "DOS"?

No, because you can have (say) a game running in full screen mode while other processes go on in the background. If you don't appreciate the differene, I don't think you ever used DOS much...

Finder refresh should be doable

[wirelessbuzzers]

I haven't looked too carefully at the guts of Apple's Spotlight technology. However, my impression is that it works something like inotify (you can ask the system to tell you when files in certain locations change), and if this is true, it should be possible to make Finder refresh instantly.

I'm writing (off and on) a toolkit for applications that refresh automatically in this way, with a minimum amount of user code. It doesn't support OS X yet, though...

I think you'll find this helpful

[ProfessionalCookie]

I think you'll find this helpful: /System/Library/ /Library/ ~/Library/ Cheers, Ed ;)

My analysis.

[mindstrm]

#15 Date display - Should be an option to go next to the clock, howeve, I've never found this frustrating. You can click on the clock to seet he date, or you can just leave ical running. This would be an easy and non-invasive change for apple though, so why not.

#14 Widgets on the desktop - This never occurred to me as something I'd want to do. Widgets have their purpose, and that purpose is to be on a separate screen for me to use if I need it; I don't want widgets cluttering my desktop like applications. For that matter, I hardly use widgets anyway.

#13 Context menus - Don't see the problem... not explained very well

#12 Dock application window behavior - Sounds more like pining for windows like behavior. The dock is simple and straightforward, adding a bunch of contextual features to it would only complicate things fo rthe end user. I can get to any open window in a second by using expose, or hitting the minimized icon.

#11 - window management. Matter of opinion; the simplicity of the current interface leads to less stressful use overall; I don't have any reason to drag windows from all four corners.

#10 Accessing applications - Uhh, what's your point? The dock is for things you wnat to keep handy. If it's something you want rarely, you open a finder window, click "Applications" And launch what you want,no different than the start menu in windows. Or you use spotlight to find it in seconds. Or you use quicksilver to launch it immediately.

#9 Backspace and delete keys - Agreed, totally.

#8 Printer setup. Never found it confusing unless you are trying ot attach to printers shared out of Active Directory tha trequire authenticatiohn, that took a bit of digging.

#7 inconsistant user interface. Maybe it's just me, but hte fact that they use slightly different color schemes and textures doesn't reall make the user interface inconsistant. Keyboard shorcuts rae consistant, mouse clicks are consistant, menu positioning is constant... it's pretty darn consistant if you ask me.

#6 Not sure why it's annoying.. it doesn't dim if you are watching video or anything... it does dim to save you lots of battery power if you aren't currently using hte machine.

#5/4/3 Finder - Yes, absolutely, finder needs help.

#2 Cut in finder - probably should be fixed, but not a big deal. Finder errs on the side of caution and doens't wnat you to automatically delete files by accident when you meant to copy them.

Now I'm not trying to be an apple apologist here believe it or not, but many of these are really stretching it and not things that many mac users would actually want changed, or that would even be good for apple in the long rum.

WindowDragon = problem solved

[porneL]

WindowDragon allows resizing windows in FVWM way - hold modifier and you can drag and resize in any direction, by any point inside window.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[pesc]

One of the things thats always bothered me when I use OS X is the way that the maximize button behaves.

On my 23" screen (1920 x 1200) I don't think I will ever want to enlarge a screen to full size. A browser/mail/code window in that size is just dumb. The Mac OS X version to optimize the window to its contents is very nice though and I use it often. I really miss it when I use Linux.

Use the entire screen? Why is it called Windows?

I maximize a window to hide the clutter behind it as well as to see some more content in the foreground window

Use the Hide others command (alt-command-H). (Which I also miss on Linux and Windows)

No more

[tgibbs]

I hate multiple buttons on notebooks, and consider the single-button notebook design one of the great virtues of the Powerbooks. On mice, fine--I use the right "button" of my Mighty Mouse all the time. But there is no way I want to twist my wrist into awkward RSI inducing configurations to reliably access a right notebook button. And I hate getting a right click when I wanted a left click because my hand happens to be on the right side of the pad. I think the two-finger-plus-click solution works quite well, and does so without destroying my wrist.

15. No Date Display

[644bd346996]

I have iCal set to start hidden. Its dock icon displays the month and the number of the day, and clicking it brings up my full monthly calendar and to-do list. As the article says, iCal should default to running, rather than display its silly JUL 17 icon all year.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Anonymous Coward]

which reads as:

Apple is better than Microsoft and all it's clones who stole their ideas from our beloved Jobs.

What you're asking is illogical. You are wrong. Apple is Right.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

It's not not what I meant, and you know that.

And I never meant that Apple's way is what it should be on Windows or KDE or Gnome neither!

I just said that it makes sense in MacOS X.

My gripes and responses to theirs...

[binary paladin]

Okay, being a Mac user I figured I'd read this to see if it was interesting or some whiner from another platform that doesn't get Macs. Turns out it was both plus some complaints that are just retarded. Lemme start with my gripes and then move on to theirs:

1. Samba's integration (or lack thereof) with the GUI.

Come on folks, it sucks ass. It's worse than the printer debacle. There is the "Sharing" option under "System Preferences" but then to set your Workgroup you have to go to Applications > Utilities > Directory Access? And, unless I'm missing something, there's no easy way to select a folder and set it to shared and then set sharing security on it as I would in Windows.

I know the Samba config file pretty well and I can get it to do anything I want really, but the main reason I moved from Linux to OS X is I didn't have to edit config files for simple tasks anymore.

2. Aliases are inconsistent.

Apple's old school aliases and symlinks are not one in he same. This is REALLY annoying for those of us that actually use the CLI since aliases don't work in our world.

3. Finder sucks.

Just figure the cost of a third party file manager into OS X.

15. No Date Display.

Maybe it's my profession, but I don't find myself needing to know the date more than once a day because I don't have such a pathetically short term memory that I forget. The time changes constantly, but I can remember a date for the whole 24 hours I need to. I do NOT want the date eating up any space on my desktop. Clicking the time gives me the date and running iCal (if you use it as I do) keeps the date constant in a way that's clever and takes up no additional space.

Seriously, who needs this or even cares? (Other than the author of the article.)

14. Widgets Can't Be Placed on the Desktop.

Yes, they can. Devmode. Although there should be a simpler/better way of doing this. I have a feeling we'll see this in 10.5. (It's also another way of solving your stupid date problem.)

13. Inconsistent Use of Context Menus.

Eh, I hardly use context menus. I don't know or care enough about this "problem" to comment either way.

12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock.

Dude, there is this awesome thing in OS X called Exposé. And there are plenty of Doc alternatives available for you if Exposé is just too complicated for you.

11. Managing Window Size.

Although I've more or less trained myself around this and in the Mac environment the only time I really change window sizes is when I'm using a web browser (and usually then it's only when my 12" Powerbook gets hooked to my much larger desktop monitor), this one one of the first real annoyances when I switched to using a Mac. I've dealt with it, but I could deal with at least a second corner at the bottom.

10. Accessing Applications.

Come on. "I need something special set up so that, for that program I use maybe twice a month, I don't have to spend an additional 10 seconds going through the application folder in finder." This doesn't seem like a common problem and the author even admits that there are third party solutions to the problem.

Hell, here's an idea, take all the programs you hardly ever use and symlink them inside a folder called "Apps I Hardly Ever Use But Whine About When I Have To Go Through The Application Directory" and then put that folder on your dock.

9. Backspace and Delete Keys.

Yep, Windows based notebooks have a delete key. Sometimes it's on the bottom. Sometimes it's on top. Sometimes it's hidden in a labyrinth guarded by a minotaur. There's NOTHING standard about the delete key on notebooks. If you can adjust to the moving target that is the delete key, you can handle fn-delete. Get over it.

8. Printer Setup.

Agreed. The print setup blows. It's been a gripe of mine since day one.

7. Inconsistent User Interface.

This isn't just a Mac "problem" but a problem that comes up a lot in any discussion about

Even easier time fix

[TimmyDee]

If you want the time and date on the Desktop, just open System Preferences and go to the Date and Time pane. In there you'll have the option to display the date and time on the Desktop in a window of varying transparency that floats over all else.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what the key combination is on OS X, but Ctrl-L will toggle full screen mode in the Linux version of Adobe Reader. Every PDF reader I've ever seen has had a full screen mode...

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[hackstraw]

The problem is that Windows Users (and apparently Linux Users) expect the zoom button (on the Mac) to take up the entire screen, so that it hides all other open windows. it doesn't do that.

This is the second time I've read this in this thread.

Windows users have been conditioned to only want to view one window at a time, which is perfectly fine, and the Mac has a thing hides the current application, and one that hides other applications. Also, there are things like 30" widescreen monitors that are the desire of all Mac users, and viewing things like slashdot in a web browser maximized across a 30" monitor simply makes little sense.

Microsoft has enabled a number of features that have become habits of users as "hacks" or whatever to achieve a secodary goal. My .sig claims that MS invented the forward slash as an example. They did. Before MS decided to use the backslash as a path deliminator and everybody else uses the slash character, people then started using other systems, especially the WWW where the "forward slash" was used. The backslash deliminator thing has been confusing for quite some time. In developing on a windows environment, C/C++ #include statements and certain functions can (almost always) interchangably use a forward or a backward slash. The same goes for other MS products. On some versions of IE on an IIS webserver (some versions??) forward and backward slashes can be used interchangebly and/or they are stripped out or some unique behavior to that particular version.

What also kills me is that a / is a reserved character and cannot be used in a filename in windows, but a backslash can be a legitimate character in other systems.

Yes, there are a number of quirks and inconsistancies in OSX, but they have not turned into workstyles and have not affected people's view of computing.

How to fix #15

[verloren]

System Preferences...Date & Time...Open International...Formats...Customize

Then change it to anything you want. A little hidden, to be fair, but that's what macosxhints is for.

Re:How to fix #15

[verloren]

Sorry, that's not quite enough detail (working from memory). Here's the full thing: http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20050 508000838365&query=menubar%2Bdate

Ohay... hold on for just a sec.

[binary paladin]

I was with you, I really was. Then this:

"Yeah, performance, stability, ease of use, security, application availability, flexibility, hardware compatibility. I can see how those would be difficult for someone to get used to coming from the Mac world."

Are you fucking kidding? I can understand you having a preference, but this smug crap is just wrong.

1. performance: Sorry, my little G4 Mac mini has a more responsive desktop then my Core 2 Duo Windows machine. Granted, there are plenty of areas where Windows has the OBVIOUS performance advantage, but it's not exactly all encompassing on either platform.

2. stability: I'm sorry, did you say stability? *My* Windows machine is stable, but I know what I'm doing. My dad's/uncle's/grandfather's machines are not quite the same story. My mom's Mac on the other hand... I never get "the phone call" that all of us people who are the "family tech" get. Sorry, Macs and Linux have got Windows pwned hands down here. I'm not saying Windows can't be stable, but to say that stability is something foreign to a Mac user, especially of the OS X generation, is a joke. If you were a Linux user I could take you seriously, but I mean... Windows? Stability? Ha!

3. ease of use: A bit subjective, but my mom, aunt, 2 clients and sister-in-law imply that Macs have the advantage there too.

4. security: Hahahahahaha. Somehow, after the "stability" statement, I knew you were going to say this. And like stable, Windows CAN BE secure. Just stop using IE and get a third party browser and a third party mail app. Oh, and while you're at it, try making it easy for the average joe to NOT run as an administrator. Sorry, Windows, out of the box, is the horse's ass of security.

5. application availability: See, if you had just stuck to things like this, where Windows is the clear king, it'd be easy for me to take you seriously.

6. flexibility: Unless your definition of "flexible" means "I can do a lot because of my app selection and hardware" and not "my OS is teh UBER customizer!" there's nothing more inherently flexible in Windows than a Mac. And for pure GUI flexibility, Linux is king.

7. hardware compatibility: Hey, score 2 out of 7 for the Windows teet-sucker!

Mac fanboys are annoying. But really, fanboys are annoying, even you Windows types.

Re:Ohay... hold on for just a sec.

[The Spoonman]

1. performance: Sorry, my little G4 Mac mini has a more responsive desktop then my Core 2 Duo Windows machine. Granted, there are plenty of areas where Windows has the OBVIOUS performance advantage, but it's not exactly all encompassing on either platform.

It's not easy to make a point when you start out by just out and out lying. Even the other Mac-pro fellow admitted that the G4 generation struggled to keep up with the Intel processors of the time. My performance comparisons were based on a G4 1.33Ghz w/ 1G RAM compared to a 1Ghz P3 with 256M of RAM. The Mac couldn't keep up on ANY task.

2. stability: I'm sorry, did you say stability? *My* Windows machine is stable, but I know what I'm doing. My dad's/uncle's/grandfather's machines are not quite the same story. My mom's Mac on the other hand... I never get "the phone call" that all of us people who are the "family tech" get. Sorry, Macs and Linux have got Windows pwned hands down here. I'm not saying Windows can't be stable, but to say that stability is something foreign to a Mac user, especially of the OS X generation, is a joke. If you were a Linux user I could take you seriously, but I mean... Windows? Stability? Ha!

Considering how often I had to force quit applications or pull the battery just to get the Mac to restart, I'd have to disagree with you there. The fact that your families computers aren't stable is indicative of YOUR problem, not theirs. True, the average person who takes a computer home is going to have tons of stability problems, but that's regardless of the OS. Which is why I don't include average users in my comparisons.

3. ease of use: A bit subjective, but my mom, aunt, 2 clients and sister-in-law imply that Macs have the advantage there too.

And, the 90% of the rest of use who use Windows disagree with you.

4. security: Hahahahahaha. Somehow, after the "stability" statement, I knew you were going to say this. And like stable, Windows CAN BE secure. Just stop using IE and get a third party browser and a third party mail app. Oh, and while you're at it, try making it easy for the average joe to NOT run as an administrator. Sorry, Windows, out of the box, is the horse's ass of security.

Okay, so you know some of the basics of how to make a machine secure, why don't you do it? My family's boxes all follow what you've laid out (and then some, of course), and I never get any calls, either.

5. application availability: See, if you had just stuck to things like this, where Windows is the clear king, it'd be easy for me to take you seriously.

Okay, so I'll try to keep it simple so you can keep up.

6. flexibility: Unless your definition of "flexible" means "I can do a lot because of my app selection and hardware" and not "my OS is teh UBER customizer!" there's nothing more inherently flexible in Windows than a Mac. And for pure GUI flexibility, Linux is king.

Linux is TOO flexible to be usable by the general masses. My point was that Windows can be used (in the hands of someone who's competent) in any capacity, unlike OSX.

Mac fanboys are annoying. But really, fanboys are annoying, even you Windows types.

I'm not a fanboy, just trying to educate the ignorant masses. The IT industry is filled with people like you and I've made it my mission to educate you or get you the fuck out. I'm tired of dealing with ignorant end-users like you.

iTunes vs Mail

[scott_karana]

Wait, these Apps are just different colourschemes. They aren't following different UI guidelines. If they're the most frequently used apps, they may as WELL look a tad distinct, don't you think?

An otherwise good article...

2 experts, or a room full of monkeys

[pbjones]

If this is the best that two experts can come up with, MacOSX must be pretty good. Sure some of them would be nice to have, but having the date displayed makes it to the list? oh ffs! There is a good reason why you can't cut a file, there is the big risk of loosing it completely. I'd prefer a list written by new users, that would be more realistic than one written by two experts with years of exposure to PCs.

right mouse button confusing?

[paulio]

I've done some kind of tech support for *both* Mac and Windows since 1988.

By far the biggest question that Windows people ask me is "left click or right click?" The people who ask these questions intermediate users, not just the clueless. This is why even Apple's two button mouse acts like a one button mouse unless the user specifically customizes it to be a two button mouse in System Preferences. Apple is right here.

By far the biggest question that Mac people have is, "when do you click and when do you double click?" By the way, the rules on this one are absolutely impossible to describe. Bad Apple! BAD!

Windows vs Mac OS

[falconwolf]

Now you are mostly spouting nonsense. Stability, ease of use, security are assets of the Mac.

Depends on who you talk to. I work with a team of 12 Windows engineers who find disparagements of the OS like that to be not only laughable, but a little sad. We'll all tell you the same thing: we chose this OS as our primary base because we didn't want to work so hard. We hate being called in the middle of the night because something went down or got hacked. The Unix guys are not so lucky. They actually take the week off when they're on call they get called so often. Us, one call a week is excessive when on call. And, more often than not it's because some supportie dialed the wrong group. When a distributed app goes down, 999 times out of a 1000 it was the Unix side...unless the Windows box was running on a Dell, of course. :)

Windows PCs are more stable than Macs? Funny, Not! I've used both Macs and Windows PCs and by far I've had more trouble with Windows PC than I have ever had with Macs. I've bought two used Macs, the first one's a Mac SE/30 I bought in 1992. I used it until 2000 when the floppy drive died. The second is a Power Mac 7300/200 I got a few months later. Until early this year, January 2006, it died though I don't know why. I went to turn it on and boot up but nothing.

Windows PCs though are a different matter. I've bought 3 brand new and one reconditioned PCs running Windows. The first two I ordered in 1996 around the same tyme. One was a laptop from Gateway running Win 95. I had it a few months before the harddisk drive died and needed to be replace. Then two weeks before a year passed the motherboard died as well, Gateway arranged to have the laptop shipped to their repair facility. A week later I called the check the status and was told they were out of a part they needed so I had to wait longer. The following week I called again and they said they had shipped it the day before so I shoud of gotten it. After exchanging calls between them and the shipping company Gateway decided to send me a new laptop which took another couple of days. The third PC was a remanufactured laptop from Gateway I got in 2000. I had it for a few months before the lcd cracked. Sorry they don't cover lcds.

The fourth PC is an HP PCI got in 2001. Like the first Gateway it's hd and motherboard had to be replaced within a year. And in the following year the RAM had to be replaced. Also like the Gateway I've had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes because the OS kept crashing. Now, I haven't said any yet about the second PC. It's an Alpha based PC from Microway I ordered as a dualboot PC running both Redhat Linux and Windows NT4. It is the only Windows machine I've had that I have not had hardware fail on me. However because the CPU is an Alpha I wasn't able to get many apps installed in Windows and I didn't have a modem installed when ordered so I haven't used it much.

I know it's only ancedotes but from my personal experience Macs are much better than Windows PCs. And the next computer I get will be a Mac, I'm hoping to order a Macbook Pro by the end of the year at the latest.

Falcon

Renaming (by hand) isn't easy

[jim3e8]

In the time it takes to rename 150 files with the mouse, you probably could have learned how to use Automator on the Mac. By the time you rename 500 you could have learned a scripting language ;)

Re:Renaming (by hand) isn't easy

[5plicer]

So rename using your keyboard: hit ENTER to begin renaming file.

maximizing windows

[falconwolf]

Then, you need some new apps because I've got apps maximized on all three of my monitors right now, and not one is showing whitespace.

Yes--either because you're using Windows, and the Windows GUI wastes space, or because you're using the sort of apps that would maximize themselves on Mac OS X anyway.

If there is no white space space isn't being wasted. As for apps maximizing in OSX, it's been a few years since I've used OSX so I don't recall if apps do maximize without having to put the top left corner of the app in the top left corner of the screen then dragging the lower right corner of the app to the lower right corner of the screen, but as I'm switching from Windows to Macs rsn I'll be finding out.

Falcon

Re:maximizing windows

[The One and Only]

If there is no white space space isn't being wasted.

I could design 50 UI's this afternoon alone to disprove that assertion.

Re:maximizing windows

[falconwolf]

If there is no white space space isn't being wasted.

I could design 50 UI's this afternoon alone to disprove that assertion.

Oops, I too quickly mispoke. You're right, just because there's no white space doesn't mean there's no wasted space. Afterall I set my browsers to display only text and not icons for the different commands and buttons on the various bars. However I think that has more to do with individual apps and not the OS. Even with the OS though I've set it up to increase my desktop, I use Auto Hide for my taskbar in Windows.

Falcon

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[jZnat]

Press F11 to hide everything...

How about window borders?

[rfovell]

How about regular click an edge to move the entire window, and control-click-drag anywhere on an edge to resize? (or vice versa)

The #1 thing I want in OS X, even ahead of a Finder that refreshes itself 100% of the time (and that's one very sore need): thin borders on windows. Just a few pixels for a window border would resolve my most persistent and irritating UI error -- I try to manipulate a scroll bar on a window, miss my target, and wind up activating the window lying below, which often comes from a different app. Additionally, it's a lot easier to move windows about if there are more places on which to grab them.

Just 2 pixels or so of border around the window, like Mac OS had before OS X. Too much to ask?

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Gilmoure]

Press F11 to hide everything...

Noooooo! Now the boss can see 'Helga' in all her full color glory!

pointer pixel

[chord.wav]

The most annoying thing I found is the "hot pixel" in the arrow cursor. In Windows is the exact tip of the arrow while in Mac is more into the arrow body. This might be an optical ilussion because the arrow is black, but still I found myself clicking the window beside the one I was trying to resize.

Another one is not having a Win+R command key to run apps. Of course there are many solutions to this. Including Apple+Space, start typing the name of the app, then Apple+Enter takes you to the top hit and run it. But I would like to have a "Run".

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Yer Mom]

if you drop the slow, bloated crap that is now called Adobe Reader, and instead used Preview, you can just hit cmd-f to enter full screen mode.

Are you sure about that? Cmd-F is Find on mine...

Agree about Adobe Reader, though :)

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[dangitman]

Porn Poker Pirates?

Yarrrr! Give me all your boobies ... I mean booty, or I'll send ye to Davy Jones' locker without a mizzenmast. While you're at it, would ye like a friendly game of naked Texas hold'em? Winner gets three wenches and an otter!

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Anonymous Coward]

Command-f is Find in Preview. I wish it worked for fullscreen, but it sure doesn't on System 10.4.8.

Preview and Sort by Date?

[durandal61]

How about being able to preview items (like in Column view) but have them sorted by date, something apparently only possible in list view? This drives me nuts.

Re:15 Things that are mostly non issues in Mac OS

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Finder's Hobbled Cut Command. - You know, I've never noticed that Cut was missing. Sure... put it in there. If you're cutting and pasting files though, you really don't get the beauty of drag and drop and keeping windows small enough that you can actually use multiple open windows.

The beauty of drag and drop? I don't think Mac users realize how slow they operate a computer. While you're dragging files around I just performed a few dozen cut/paste operations in windows.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[chaosmind]

As others have mentioned, you can option-click the maximize button for a more complete "maximize experience," but...

what about F11 for *true* fullscreen? that's the one IE feature I always wanted on Safari (and Preview and Pages and Keynote...). yes, yes, those keys are now used by Expose by default but we can always customize keyboard shortcuts, the point is in having the basic functionality available. if by default F11 was "Expose desktop" and Ctrl-F11 was "true maximize focussed window" those who cared could easily tweak to liking, no fuss no muss.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[UnxMully]

Cool. Thanks for that.

How the hell does relate to the OS?

[peektwice]

9. Backspace and Delete Keys. The world holds millions and millions of computers that have Backspace (delete left) and Delete (delete right) keys. Most editors and writers who've been exposed to Windows notebook keyboards that have both of those keys can tell you that moving to a Mac notebook that has only a Backspace key (called "Delete" on the Mac) can be frustrating.

Isn't that a hardware design problem? Then the author suggests that instead of fn-backspace, you should download a utility that remaps the \ key to delete. Then if you need a \ you can type fn-\ which will produce a \

That's fucking brilliant. Solve one problem by introducing another and not really solving the first. Stupid "journalists".

Inconsistent behavior of red-x button

[Anonymous Coward]

I am annoyed by the inconsistent behavior of the red-x button. In some apps, it hides the window. In some apps, it closes the window. In some apps, it quits the app. In some apps, it's greyed out for no apparent reason and one must hide/close/quit with the keyboard or menu bar. In the first three cases, there's no way to find out in advance what it will do--just click it and see.

You meant command-shift-f

[SideshowBob]

For Preview.app's fullscreen mode.

Re:You meant command-shift-f

[Hes Nikke]

thanks for the correction... someone needs to mod the parent up!

Re:You meant command-shift-f

[Anonymous Coward]

mod grandparent up for being insightful. AND! mod parent up for making the insightful note that the grandparent is insightful :)

Differentiation in Expose: Excellent point!

[gknoy]

I think this is a very good point. Wish i'd thought of it. :) If I'd used a Mac more, I'd probably have had the insight. Still, I hope you get upmodded for this. :)

You've never had the misfortune of working support

[Anonymous Coward]

have you?

I cannot tell you how many times I myself nearly broke down in tears trying to coax some poor schmuck into clicking the fucking right mouse button. Either that, or they'd ask, every fucking time you'd tell them to click on something, "which button?"

This was many years ago but I really fucking doubt it's changed. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of customers had no idea what it was for or when to use it or that it existed, etc.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[MojoStan]

All of which is a good argument for why Apple shouldn't've knuckled in to Microsoft and Adobe and should've stuck w/ their Rhapsody plan and never have wasted time on the foetid mess which is Carbon.

I'm no expert on Rhapsody vs. Carbon, but doesn't Apple still depend on Carbon for some of their most important apps? Without Carbon, would Apple have "wasted time" converting their own apps to Cocoa? If Apple had spent time and resources on converting their apps to Cocoa, would OS X be as usable as it is today?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just wondering. I just thought if Carbon is such a "foetid mess," then Apple would have converted more of their own Carbon apps to Cocoa by now.

Here are some Apple Carbon apps:

• Final Cut Pro
• Shake
• DVD Studio Pro
• Final Cut Express
• Finder
• iTunes
• Quicktime Player prior to version 7.0
• DVD Player

multitasking

[falconwolf]

Right--referring to my original post here, you want to singletask and not multitask. Depending on what apps you use, this may be a reason Windows is better for you--although apps like Final Cut and Xcode can take up the entire screen on Mac OS X without much effort, other apps like Safari and TextEdit are harder to maximize. (This is because of two concerns--need for real estate, and likelihood of multitasking. If I'm in an IM, text editor, or terminal window, I probably want to multitask pretty often--if I'm in Final Cut or Xcode, I'm more focused on what I'm doing then and there).

Ooh I can multitask, er run more than one app and still have a window maximized. I do it frequently. I may have a text editor open in one window, another window open with Firefox, and a third with IE. I type code in the text editor, save, then refresh each browser. I easily switch between each window by using "alt" + "tab" on Windows or, if I recall right, "option" (or whatever the key next to the space bar is) + "tab" on Macs. For things like moving something from one window to another all I need do is select it, click and drag it to the taskbar where I hover it over the window I want to copy it to, then that window pops up and I release the button where I want it pasted. No problems.

Falcon

Re:multitasking

[The One and Only]

Yeah, but you expressed a desire to focus on a single task at a time. Windows is more about letting you do that--Mac OS X is more about letting you divide your focus when appropriate.

Re:multitasking

[falconwolf]

Yeah, but you expressed a desire to focus on a single task at a time. Windows is more about letting you do that--Mac OS X is more about letting you divide your focus when appropriate.

I typically do want to concentrate on one task but when I want or need to multitask Windows allows me to do so, it's not like Windows is better for a single task while Macs are better for multitasking.

Falcon

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[DJCacophony]

The problem is that Windows Users (and apparently Linux Users) expect the zoom button (on the Mac) to take up the entire screen, so that it hides all other open windows. it doesn't do that.

No, the problem is most certainly NOT that Windows and Linux users expect something. The problem is that OSX does not give them that option. The fault is OSX's, not the users'.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[pasamio]

Adium has a menu bar icon instead though which allows you to select conversations from it so you don't need to augment the Dock icon to get this functionality if you want it. That said I only have a 12" iBook and my complaint is that a lot of menus take up space which cuts into these things.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[vashmyvindows]

You're looking for Megazoomer, a SIMBL plugin. Once installed, cmd+return to fullscreen a Cocoa app.

SIMBL: http://culater.net/software/SIMBL/SIMBL.php
Megazoomer: http://ianhenderson.org/megazoomer.html

As a sidenote: I use plugins to give me a pull-down Quake style Terminal, colored source code in Safari, and one especially useful plugin that remembers your Safari tabs after you've quit the app (ala Opera).

OS 7-9 zoom button was the best

[magnamous]

I really think the System 7 through OS 9 zoom button worked the best. If you clicked it, it fit the size of the window to its contents. If you option-clicked it, it ballooned the window out to fit the entire screen (minus the menubar). Best of both worlds, in my opinion. I really wish it still worked that way in OS X...I basically don't ever use the zoom button anymore - not only because it is inconsistent and buggy, but because it feels useless to me.

unless you want to

[mgkimsal2]

write files to an ftp server.

If it's something that ought to be common (enable ftp server? tab through apps? move pictures around?), there is a simple way to do it. As in, brain dead simple 1-2 click operation.

Sure you can enable one, but try to mount a remote one and write files to it - can't be done. They should likely label it a FDP - file download protocol, because you can't generically Transfer - it's one way operations. No doubt the next upgrade to 10.5 will solve all that, but I shouldn't have to wait - Windows has let me write files to FTP servers for years.

Just my answer

[UnknowingFool]

7. Inconsistent User Interface. Open iTunes, Safari and Mail. All three of these programs are Apple's own, and they're among the ones most likely to be used by Mac OS X users.

Well, I think iTunes looks different because Apple might be maintaining consistency between the Windows and Mac versions. It can't get the Windows version to use the metallic look but it can get the Mac version to look greyish.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[toddestan]

Well, with every other Windowing system I've ever used, you hit the maximize button, and you are done. On the Mac, you have to drag the window to the top left, and then drag the bottom right corner to the other side of the monitor because the bottom right corner is the only corner that's resizable. Be sure to not undershoot the edges either, or you'll do something you don't want when you aimlessly go to the side of the screen to scroll like you can do with every other Windowing system I've ever used. It's not like the Maximize button is a terribly complicated concept, and I'm sure Apple could implement it into OSX in about 5 minutes. It boggles the mind that they don't.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[THE anonymus coward]

What about exposé? I have many maximized windows, and after a quick tap to F9, everything is visible.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Anonymous Coward]

> twm, which largely pre-dates the Mac, didn't have any sort of maximise button (it had an iconify button)

twm does NOT "largely pre-date the Mac," in fact it doesn't even pre-date the Mac II.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Omestes]

Actually since I've gotten used to non-maximized windows on a Mac, I stopped using them on a PC, that way I can have a chat window open, view my MP3 player, etc... at the same time as I'm on /. at home. Also long blocks of text hard harder to read, it helps to break things into shorter rows, it lets you read fast. I could have Firefox pretty much maximized (its called drag window to full screen), but would rather not, though in my first couple weeks after switching this is what I did.

Personal preference, not objective fact, mind.

Going back to the typewriter days....

[Foerstner]

"Enter" is the "go" key, as far as most people are concerned.

Really? I could have sworn that, going back 150 years or so, the big key chunky key to the right of your pinky finger has had, as its primary action, "Place the text insertion point in the correct position for new text entry."

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but a lot of core functionality in Mac OS X relies on "Carbon". What defines Carbon is pretty fuzzy these days, but here's a list of things that Mac OS X inherited from Mac OS 9:

• Aliases
• AppleScript
• Apple Type Services (advanced typography, commonly called ATSUI, used to render text)
• ColorSync
• Keychain (although this has been rewritten, up until 10.2 it relied on the original OS 9 APIs)
• InkWell (it's in Carbon.framework so I'm counting it)
• The Menu manager, including Contextual menu plug-ins
• QuickTime

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[clarkcox3]

One of the things thats always bothered me when I use OS X is the way that the maximize button behaves. I can see how its behaviour under OS X makes sense in a certain way (Only enlarging to be 'big enough'), but I maximize a window to hide the clutter behind it as well as to see some more content in the foreground window.

If it's enlarged to be "big enough", then expanding any more won't, by definition, show you any more content. Additionally, if you want to hide all of the other apps, that's what "Hide Others" is for.

It's not a maximize, and it shouldn't be.

[Kadin2048]

That's because the Green widget in OS X is not a maximize button, okay?

If Apple had wanted to put in a Maximize button, they probably could have done it in five minutes, and ditched all the logic that's actually present behind that green button. It's not a Maximize button, it's an Autosize button. It enlarges (or shrinks) the current window to try and match the displayed content without scrollbars, in both the x and y directions. If it can't do that, it'll maximize it out to the current screen.

This is IMO a far more intelligent and useful feature than a simple maximize. On large displays, I hardly ever actually fill the entire screen with a single window (the exception being when I'm watching movies, and then I use a special fullscreen command because I want it to take over the display completely). Maximizing a single window to take over an entire display seems like a concept that was probably necessary and useful back in the days of 17" 800x600 monitors, but on a 21" or 22" widescreen display it's just annoying. I don't want my web browser to take over my screen, I just want it to fit the width of the current page and then take up the full vertical height (that way, I can still have my instant messenger / email / whatever visible in the background to the side of it). The very small number of applications that really need full use of the screen (graphics and video editing come to mind) can have special options.

If Apple ever replaces the autosize button with a maximize one, I'll be sorely disappointed. MacOS doesn't emulate Windows, and shouldn't try. It's built like it is for a reason.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[LKM]

I think some applications allow option-clicking to maximise. But for the love of me, I can't see how anyone could find that useful. It's probably just something people are used to, but coming from a Mac, the maximising behaviour of Windows windows always struck me as an odd workaround for those crappy windows-within-windows-applications. It's simply not needed on Macs.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[yandros]

TWM also had a maximize button, although I don't recall if it was in the default config or not.

Further, it had options to make `maximize height only' and `maximize width only' buttons... ...which are the easy way to do what the green-plus button does on the Mac. :-)

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? Dear, me.

*mods you Funny*

-jesboat (posting anon for obvious reasons)

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Fred_A]

Further, it had options to make `maximize height only' and `maximize width only' buttons...

In a lot of current window managers you can use the maximise button with mouse2 to maximise along the height of the screen and mouse3 to do so along its width.
I think twm worked more or less that way as well (there were similar tricks in a number of places with it). Not too sure about the maximise button though. There was a resize button which would let you maximise if you wanted to by dragging the outline to the whole screen. Although maybe if you used it with mouse2 or 3... or both maybe. It's really been too long :-/

Group permissions please!!

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Put away" is just silly. Prior to Mac OS X, the desktop wasn't a "real" place (an artifact from Macintosh System 1.0 in which
> folders were implemented as file attributes), it just displayed files that were set to display there, on multiple disks.

Actually there was a folder named "Desktop Folder" at the top level of the HD, but it was hidden. The main reason for "put away" was that ejecting a disk used to leave an *image* of the disk on the desktop, so you could use things on multiple floppies at one time, and only swap when needed.

There are obvious problems with the hidden desktop folder scheme, such as:
- circular reference: the HD appears on the Desktop, but the Desktop is in the HD hierarchy
- multiple users: in a multi-user OS, who "owns" the Desktop? If each user has his own, how do you display common items?
- file browsing: if the dialogs show "Desktop" as the top level, how do you distinguish between different disks' Desktop Folders?

Speaking of multiple users, here is one of my big gripes with Mac OS X: there is NO EASY WAY to manage groups and group permissions! You have to go into NetInfo Manager and learn about NetInfo domains, etc.

Apple switched to a multi-user system, but still treat it as if it's a single-user interface. It's like they expect each user with an account to use ONLY his/her own stuff, and not to share anything.

I can't count the number of times I've gone to change ownership/permissions on a file, and had the settings spring back to their old settings upon clicking the little padlock closed, with NO EXPLANATION or error message to tell me why I can't change the settings.

I've even had the inexplicable "error -60002" pop up while trying to change the permissions AS ROOT. Come on, Apple, this OS is almost 10 years old, counting development time. Give us an easy and reliable way to manage simple groups. I shouldn't have to buy a server OS to do group management.

Re:Window Management (and one vs. two button mice)

[pwagland]

Sadly, I can and will bite.

A friend of mine in Uni (a few years back now) could not deal with two button mice, since, as he was dyslexic (I think that is what it was) he just could not grok right vs. left mouse buttons. He liked the mac since it did not have a right mouse button, and unix (on a terminal) since it had no graphics at all!

Now, I have not had contact with him in a few years, so I don't know if he ever did manage to grok a two button mouse properly.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Anonymous Coward]

cmd-shift-f, not cmd-f.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Swift2001]

Actually, I went for comic effect. But one of the worst cases of this was some reputable financial site that popped up a small window for information. However, the next time I launched Explorer, it came up in that teeny window, too. And I find that once Explorer decides what size its default window is, it's the devil trying to open it any other way. Does any Windows master know how to do it?

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[WillAdams]

How many of those apps couldn't be rewritten in Cocoa?

How many of them work completely correctly in Mac OS X? Finder certainly doesn't --- try the afore-mentioned technique on the non-main-monitor of a multi-monitor system.

How many of them support Services?

Consider how much less memory Mac OS X would use if it didn't need to load Carbon.

William

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple-H to hide the clutter.

focus!

[maximthemagnificent]

How about making it so applications can't change the focus on the user while your in the middle of doing something?
If I'm renaming a file, and a DVD is loaded, it really pisses me off to have it break that off and show the DVD. Gah!!!
There a million examples, but I'm sure you've all run afoul of plenty on your own.

Maxim

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[WillAdams]

Apple Type Services is only found in Cocoa apps IME, NeXT had NeXTtime, I prefer links to aliases since there are fewer surprises &c.

If there had been no Carbon, Apple wouldn't've been able to defer re-writing Keychain until 10.2, which pretty much proves my point, no?

William

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Humm]

> but I maximize a window to hide the clutter behind it as well

You can reduce clutter behind a window by hiding all other applications, using the shortcut option-command-H. Of course, this also hides minimized apps in the dock, so it's kind of overkill for just reducing clutter.

Since the article is about things that should be changed for Leopard, one could add that the virtual desktop that is to be included in 10.5 may be a good way to reduce clutter as well.

What horse poo!

[bandmassa]

No date disply? What's the system-wide time menu then? Click on the time and the first item in the menu is the date (greyed out because it's just a display) Delete-right? Delete-right is the stupidest thing I've ever come across in Doze, it's a pain in the arse and frankly, if Apple ever add this "feature", I'll be turning it off. They lost me after these, obviously they have NO idea what they're talking about. Horseshit all of it.

Well, look on the bright side....

[Anonymous Coward]

Next post like this will be "1325 things Microsoft should change in Windows"

lol just kiddin

change to the dock

[digitalequinox]

personally, one of the most (and few) aggravations of os x is the dock in the sense that one accidental mouse click in the wrong place results in a launch sequence for an application i did not intend to open. this can cause annoying delays especially when i have a lot of other windows open and am pushing the system's memory constraints as is. i like having the dock visible though. i think apple should consider requiring double clicks to launch applications from the dock. this could be incorporated easily with some slick graphics and may even facilitate a way to bring more cute-sy system effects to the forefront of the gui.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[steeviant]

That is part of my point as well. I'm writing this in Gnome/Ubuntu. I have three window managers installed on this machine (KWin, Metacity, and Beryl), and all of them behave in the same way. I suspect that I could easily apt-get a few more that also behaved the same way. Windows also behaves the same way. Almost everything behaves in that same way.

That's the Microsoft Way(tm). The toolkits in X11, and Windows itself are following Microsoft's Presentation Manager Style Guide from Windows 3.1. It's nice for Microsoft that you've adopted their style guide and you now feel that their way is the proper way of doing things, but please don't go around spouting that Apple should copy them.

If you like the Windows way of doing things then by all means feel free to stay the hell away from the Mac (in fact, get your damn Windows-indoctrinated hands off my UI!). We'll all be better off that way.

Re:Window Management. Maximize?

[Anonymous Coward]

Grab the bottom corner of the window and drag it until the application covers the whole screen.