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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

[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.

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

[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.

Noooooooooo

[Frankie70]

But it(Tiger) is not perfect.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.

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 ?

[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 ?

[neoform]

Apparently he doesn't understand that Return or Enter is the OSX equivalent of F2..

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: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.

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.

I really don't know...

[spikev]

...if we should trust someone to give design interface advice who spreads their article over four pages.

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? ;-)

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...

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: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: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.

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.

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...

[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...

[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: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.

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.

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: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...

[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:Window Management. Maximize?

[mmkkbb]

Hold option while you click the zoom button, and the window goes up to full screen.

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.

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.

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: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.

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: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?

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: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: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)

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:CLI

[Llywelyn]

...just drag the file in question into the terminal and it will conveniently pop up your answer.

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.

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: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.

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: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: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.

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.