PDA

View Full Version : OS X should take some tips from Windows...


Oats
Jun 3, 2004, 09:02 AM
I love OS X and the mac. I grew up on the mac, but now I use Windows in the business world daily, and there are a few things which I wish that Apple would "copy" from windows.

1) Menu bars in each App window, as opposed to the shared menu bar which changes every time you switch apps.

2) You can change the size of a window from any of the 4 sides! On the mac, you have to get your mouse to the far bottom right to resize a window. This is annoying and often difficult if that portion of the window happens to be off the screen.

Maybe minor things, but I have come to appreciate the windows interface more and more, it allows me to be more productive. Anyone agree?

russed
Jun 3, 2004, 09:35 AM
1) Menu bars in each App window, as opposed to the shared menu bar which changes every time you switch apps.

2) You can change the size of a window from any of the 4 sides! On the mac, you have to get your mouse to the far bottom right to resize a window. This is annoying and often difficult if that portion of the window happens to be off the screen.


1) i like it that the bar is just for the app. in use. when i first switched i ffound it odd but now im used to it and think it is far better. i think it makes the screen less cluttered as less space has to be taken up with application bars and also is far better for letting you know which app is in use.

2) i see your point here but i have never noticed this so i suppose i cant find a need for it. however one advantage of apple's version is that there is no need ofr a border all the way around the application so it kind of makes it look neater, i think!

well that is my opinion!

oh and also it has to be said, the less os x is like windows, the better in my opinion!

robbieduncan
Jun 3, 2004, 10:21 AM
I love OS X and the mac. I grew up on the mac, but now I use Windows in the business world daily, and there are a few things which I wish that Apple would "copy" from windows.

1) Menu bars in each App window, as opposed to the shared menu bar which changes every time you switch apps.

2) You can change the size of a window from any of the 4 sides! On the mac, you have to get your mouse to the far bottom right to resize a window. This is annoying and often difficult if that portion of the window happens to be off the screen.

Maybe minor things, but I have come to appreciate the windows interface more and more, it allows me to be more productive. Anyone agree?

1) This has always been this way on the Mac. If MS had copied Mac OS better to start with you would not find this annoying! Seriously though they might be able to make this an option for switchers, but what would happen to the Apple menu and the menu extras (clock and so on)?

2) Interestingly some Apple Apps (Pro App Framework based I think) enable this: FCE 2 certainly does (and if you have 2 windows touching it will resize the other so as it gets smaller).

abhishekit
Jun 3, 2004, 10:30 AM
well i like the menu bar at thetop, infact it would be a discomfort if apple changes it to separate menus..
and i hv no opinion of the second point, as never really thought bout it..

cheers

jxyama
Jun 3, 2004, 10:46 AM
I love OS X and the mac. I grew up on the mac, but now I use Windows in the business world daily, and there are a few things which I wish that Apple would "copy" from windows.

1) Menu bars in each App window, as opposed to the shared menu bar which changes every time you switch apps.

2) You can change the size of a window from any of the 4 sides! On the mac, you have to get your mouse to the far bottom right to resize a window. This is annoying and often difficult if that portion of the window happens to be off the screen.

Maybe minor things, but I have come to appreciate the windows interface more and more, it allows me to be more productive. Anyone agree?

#2 is a good suggestion. apple is being stupid for not adding this feature. there's no UI advantage to be gained by enabling resize at only one corner.

on the other hand, #1 is completely useless. unless the app you are interested in is the front, its menus are useless. in windows, you don't invoke commands on the menu in the apps that are in the background. so what are those menus doing in the background? nothing - just taking up space on the desktop and providing irrelevant information. they way OS X works is much better in this regard because only what's useful and relevant is shown at any given time. it may take some time getting used to, but it's definitely based on a better UI principle.

PlaceofDis
Jun 3, 2004, 10:49 AM
when i switched i found the menu bar rather annying at first, but once i learned the keyboard shortcuts and realized that the interface was less cluttered i was a much happier person, since i only have a 12" powerbook and not much screen room its great that my windows dont have to be huge because a third of it is a menu bar, instead its all neat and tidy, and universal for each app, instead of haveing to search for the tool bar on the app whereever it is located i can command tab to the app and know that the toolbar is up on the top, this just works better for me personally, to each his own, and the resizing issue, i like the zoom function which auto sizes the window, again this is personal preference

ingenious
Jun 3, 2004, 11:15 AM
I love OS X and the mac. I grew up on the mac, but now I use Windows in the business world daily, and there are a few things which I wish that Apple would "copy" from windows.

1) Menu bars in each App window, as opposed to the shared menu bar which changes every time you switch apps.

2) You can change the size of a window from any of the 4 sides! On the mac, you have to get your mouse to the far bottom right to resize a window. This is annoying and often difficult if that portion of the window happens to be off the screen.

Maybe minor things, but I have come to appreciate the windows interface more and more, it allows me to be more productive. Anyone agree?


No I do not agree! :D

1) It's nice to have your screen so cluttered! I hate having programs show up in my taskbar when they're open. I know it's stupid, but it's just a pet peeve.

2) I like the four corner thing. It makes it to where I'm not always accidentally resizing my windows.

Applespider
Jun 3, 2004, 02:14 PM
Don't agree with 1 - I like one menu at a time - with clearly defined structures for where the preferences for that program are. I do use Windows at work and finding the 'options' for an app can be a nightmare

The resizing would be good tho - like you say it's tough if the resize corner ends up off the screen.

I'd like a 'history' button in the finder so I can see the most recently used files/folders I've been into - I find that really useful when I'm emailing attachments that I've been working on earlier that day that are strewn across the HD

theimacguy
Jun 3, 2004, 02:49 PM
I think they should change the zoom button to a full screen button like in windows.

Just a thought. :cool:

stcanard
Jun 3, 2004, 03:03 PM
I love OS X and the mac. I grew up on the mac, but now I use Windows in the business world daily, and there are a few things which I wish that Apple would "copy" from windows.

1) Menu bars in each App window, as opposed to the shared menu bar which changes every time you switch apps.

Just in case there's any doubt as to the general opinion on this issue
;)

Absolutely not. That's one of the things I hate the most about the Windows interface, is the wasted real estate of having a menu bar in every window. It took me about a week to adjust to the Mac way and now I hate going back.

Plus there's the whole Fitt's law issue there.

parrothead
Jun 3, 2004, 03:48 PM
2) I like the four corner thing. It makes it to where I'm not always accidentally resizing my windows.

I agree, when I work on the PC at work the thing that annoys me the most is when I accidentally grab on one of the edges and resize the window. In the main application I use (Sigmascan) it ALWAYS causes a crash when this happens and it is really annoying. :mad:

As far as the first point goes, I don't like the way that windows leaves the menus connected to the window. It is so nice on the Mac to be able to go to the top every time instead of having to look at ugly windows font and color scheme and have to search out the menus.

blue&whiteman
Jun 3, 2004, 04:12 PM
As far as the first point goes, I don't like the way that windows leaves the menus connected to the window. It is so nice on the Mac to be able to go to the top every time instead of having to look at ugly windows font and color scheme and have to search out the menus.

listen to this man. he knows whats up.

Krizoitz
Jun 3, 2004, 04:20 PM
1) Menu bars in each App window, as opposed to the shared menu bar which changes every time you switch apps.

This is a BAD idea. First its a waste of screen real-estate.
You can only use one menu at a time so providing multiple un-useable windows is a waste. In addition providing a menu in each window means that the menus are constantly changing location, this is bad from a UI perspective.

Gaz
Jun 3, 2004, 04:37 PM
1. The UI principle is that if you know where something is going to be you can move the mouse there quicker. i.e. The menus remain static and through repition there is less cognative load as your mind doesn't don't need to 'search' for the menu as you already know where it's going to be...hence the "start button"

Also as stated above it's not good practise to show users options that are not currently available. You end up with information overload.

And another point...research has shown that the fastest things to navigate to on a screen are the edges with the corners next...hence the hot spots for expose. With this priniciple in mind you can see it would be faster to move the mouse the top edge where the menu will always be.


2. Agree with you...it's just annoying as it is.

However you're on the right track...Mac OS X has lots to learn from Windows...and the only winner at the end of it is us.

G

Wes
Jun 3, 2004, 04:40 PM
Also from an ease of use way of thinking:

If you have to go to a menu on an individual program you have to move towards it slow down and stop. If the menu is at the top of the screen you can just throw your mouse up because you know it will stop.

adamjay
Jun 3, 2004, 04:48 PM
#2... i totally disagree.

In Safari, and Terminal (which are really the only 2 app's that i resize windows in) the main thing i LOVE is the clean, borderless design of the windows. I'm not a fan of an extra border on the bottom or the left. Adding resizeability to all 4 corners would certainly clutter up the windows further more (especially the bottom left in Safari). It works at the bottom right because its beneath the scroll bar. The way that Windows gets around this is by changing the look of the cursor when it is at the corner for resizing... and that's one of the things that i never liked about windows: too many things going on. (The little mickey mouse glove hand that appears when you mouse over a link is bad enough) Less is more, and this seems to be Apple's view as well, so i wouldn't expect Apple to adopt this.

strider42
Jun 3, 2004, 04:56 PM
I love OS X and the mac. I grew up on the mac, but now I use Windows in the business world daily, and there are a few things which I wish that Apple would "copy" from windows.

1) Menu bars in each App window, as opposed to the shared menu bar which changes every time you switch apps.

2) You can change the size of a window from any of the 4 sides! On the mac, you have to get your mouse to the far bottom right to resize a window. This is annoying and often difficult if that portion of the window happens to be off the screen.

Maybe minor things, but I have come to appreciate the windows interface more and more, it allows me to be more productive. Anyone agree?

number 2 sounds OK, but I don't think its a big deal, but 1 is totally wrong in my opinion. the global task bar makes so much mroe sense to me. Why should I have to move my mouse to a different location depending on what window I have open. There's only one program, so why shoudl there be a menu bar for each window. They all do exactly the same thing. I also find it very sueful for telling which app is on top. The global task bar is, in my opinion, the single most defining characteristic of mac OS and perhaps its best attribute.

One of the things I hate about windows is how inconsistent it is. excel has a single menu for all its windows, outlook doesn't. it drives me crazy and it stops you from using dual screen efectively in windows. Apple got it right with the menu bar. There is a lot of logic and well thought out ergonomics behind it.

legion
Jun 3, 2004, 05:57 PM
I agree with the OP.

I understand why Apple did #1... but I think it is outdated now. Relative distances become an issue. Say you have a screen and have laid out multiple windows (tiled) from different apps so you can work with different info from each. When you make each window active (say the one located in the bottom left corner), the menu is always at the top. However, in Windows, that menu bar is within easy reach. You can adjust something there, make your next app window active just above your previous window and adjust something there without having to go to the top each time. Also, take for instance multiple monitors. You've blown up Word on the left screen and photoshop on the right screen. Well, the menu bar will only stay in one screen so you have to cross monitors to get to settings for at least one app. Both cases are bad for speed. The other thing is that some programs let you use more than one application at once (eg, if a non-restricted modal window is up, you can change paramenters on it and something in the background at once; another case is something like an always-on-top audio mixer where you can adjust things on it and say a background sequencer.)

As for resizing from all edges, I don't understand Apple on this.
A) You can code windows without a border and have it be resizable in Windows XP.

B) Sometimes it's handy to have resize restricted to one direction. For instance, say you have 3 sides just where you want them but just want to stretch out the fourth side. Grabbing corners in OS X, you run the risk of changing 2 sides. Grabbing an edge in windows limits only that dimension to being able to be adjusted, so everything else stays where it is. If you do it from a corner, then you can adjust two dimensions simutaneously (just like OS X.) That's very handy.

C) If you have problems accidentally resizing, why are you clicking and dragging there anyway? First, the icon changes to tell you what you're doing and second, you move a window from its title bar.

flyfish29
Jun 3, 2004, 05:59 PM
but 1 is totally wrong in my opinion. the global task bar makes so much mroe sense to me. Why should I have to move my mouse to a different location depending on what window I have open. There's only one program, so why shoudl there be a menu bar for each window. They all do exactly the same thing. I also find it very sueful for telling which app is on top. The global task bar is, in my opinion, the single most defining characteristic of mac OS and perhaps its best attribute.

One of the things I hate about windows is how inconsistent it is. excel has a single menu for all its windows, outlook doesn't. it drives me crazy and it stops you from using dual screen efectively in windows. Apple got it right with the menu bar. There is a lot of logic and well thought out ergonomics behind it.

I happen to totally agree. Why would you want more menu items? Screen size is important to me and when Apple makes the interface save space it helps improve screen size. For instance, the loading status bar that goes across the web address in Safari saves room at the bottom where it used to be in some browsers. In a sense it makes the screen 1/4 in bigger...the more they do that the more text that you can read without scrolling, etc.

Johnny

GiantsFan
Jun 3, 2004, 06:28 PM
Apple should make the apple key on the keyboard trigger the apple icon on the tool/menu bar, like how that microsfot icon key triggers the start menu.

Applespider
Jun 4, 2004, 04:14 AM
Apple should make the apple key on the keyboard trigger the apple icon on the tool/menu bar, like how that microsfot icon key triggers the start menu.

Bad idea! That 'Windows' icon key does nothing aside from bring up the start menu.

The Apple key is the equivalent of the ctrl key and we need it for all our keyboard shortcuts...

legion
Jun 4, 2004, 05:47 AM
Bad idea! That 'Windows' icon key does nothing aside from bring up the start menu.

The Apple key is the equivalent of the ctrl key and we need it for all our keyboard shortcuts...

THe Windows key is a shortcut key that is used with letters and such to bring up a lot of things. It's best to know what you are talking about before posting
:cool:

Applespider
Jun 4, 2004, 06:19 AM
THe Windows key is a shortcut key that is used with letters and such to bring up a lot of things. It's best to know what you are talking about before posting
:cool:

Sorry - should have clarified in the original post. Yes, you can use it with letters to navigate through the menus which is v useful - and I use it for that regularly - tho I find the Alt + letter more useful. But for many people, all it does is bring up the Start Menu often when they were aiming for Alt or Ctrl. I was just trying to say that the Apple key acts more like the ctrl key and it's more useful like that than bringing up a limited Apple menu.

socokid
Jun 4, 2004, 09:13 AM
This is annoying and often difficult if that portion of the window happens to be off the screen.

Answer to #1: I couldn't disagree more. The Windoze way is wholely confusing. When you close the last window, the app quits (where's the menu item to quit when the last window is gone? That's why it does it that way). I would much rather have the app open until I TELL it to quit. Even with no windows open. I also love having the menu bar in the exact same place, every time, for every app. At the very top of the monitor. No hand-eye jockying at all. Just move your mouse up as far as you want (it stops at the top!), and click your menu! Easier.

Answer to #2: This one is funny to me. Since when is clicking the little green button that is on every window "difficult"? Try it. Move your browser window off to the bottom right of the screen, hiding the resize corner. Now, click the green button. Amazing isn't it? The magic green button also works for windows that are too big. Resizing from one place isn't that bad at all. It's consistent. And if you are going to resize a window, who cares where you do it from? The VAST majority of the time you will be doing it from the bottom right anyway. If you need to hide the app, just option click on the DT. Done. I see the point, but it's so minor that it's nearly not worth mentioning, in my opinion. I have never wanted for such an action.

Lastly, I can't stand the ergonimics of Windoze "hot-keys". It's completely uncomfortable, you have to lift you hand to use them. Control? My thumb has to move over two more keys, removing my hand from its normal keyboard position to perform everyday key-combos. I like the position of the Apple (command) key MUCH better.

7on
Jun 4, 2004, 11:11 AM
I'd like a 'history' button in the finder so I can see the most recently used files/folders I've been into - I find that really useful when I'm emailing attachments that I've been working on earlier that day that are strewn across the HD

Your wish is my command

bousozoku
Jun 4, 2004, 11:47 AM
From a programming standpoint, it makes sense to have the menus connected to the main window. In NeXTStep, this is how the menus worked. For Mac OS X, they changed it to a single menu bar at the top since Mac OS applications didn't necessarily have a main window and legacy users would revolt. There were far fewer NeXTStep users, so it didn't really matter to Apple if they did revolt.

Rather than have all sides of a window allow re-sizing, I would like to see a system menu. This is where you press alt-space bar and get a menu of moving and re-sizing options available from the keyboard.

If there is one thing that Windows does better above all other things, it's that you can do file management within file open and save dialog boxes. Apple would do well to implement this in their navigation services. How many times have you been in an application trying to save something only to find that you have something that needs to be renamed? Sure, you can open a Finder window and go through all the motions, but don't the extra steps seem rather Windows-like? Being able to rename within the save dialog box makes for an efficient solution.

radhak
Jun 4, 2004, 12:01 PM
Answer to #1: I couldn't disagree more. The Windoze way is wholely confusing. When you close the last window, the app quits (where's the menu item to quit when the last window is gone? That's why it does it that way). I would much rather have the app open until I TELL it to quit. Even with no windows open.

different strokes for different people, i guess. this is the one aspect of Macs that i have not got used to, or reconciled with. when i close the last window, i truely want the app to quit. why on earth shd the app keep running, when there is nothing for it to do; it shd just re-start when I TELL it to! i finally end up with a bunch of apps that are hanging around doing nothing, each of which i need to 'Command-Q' to stop.

while i am here, i have to say that a number of apps do not respond well after the last window is closed. if i try to click the icon on the dock, nothing happens other than the menu appearing on the top. confusing as hell. i end up terminating the app and restarting it. Talk of extra work! Has anybody else seen this?
(Mozilla does this all the time, and Safari does it too, though in-frequently. )

kidA
Jun 4, 2004, 12:20 PM
on number 1:

having the single menu bar that common to all applications is a basic human interface design principle. it is much faster to access than one at the top of a given window because no matter which app you're using, the menu bar is at the top of the screen. also, you just throw your cursor up to the top of the screen. lots less aiming around.

in fact, the reason that microsoft did not copy this from the mac os into windows is because apple patented it--i believe it's called the 'apple bar' or 'apple menu' or somesuch nonsense. putting the menu bar within each window was the only way they could not infringe on the patent.

wesli_1
Jun 5, 2004, 04:37 AM
1) Menu bars in each App window, as opposed to the shared menu bar which changes every time you switch apps.


The shared menu bar can be a pain in the butt when you are working on a spanned dual monitor setup. Maybe there could be an option to have the menu bar in each app window?

Maybe a more practical solution would be to have the menu bar for the active application appear on the screen which its window(s) are on.

Just my 5 cents (we don't have 2c coins anymore in OZ)

sambo.
Jun 5, 2004, 10:28 AM
i am constantly frustrated by the amount of screen space taken up by windoze menu bars.

the "f" key toggle in photoshop illustrates my point perfectly.......
a "maximised" image window still has about 1" of wasted blue-strip etc cluttering the top of my screen. hit the "f" key and only the menus themselves are left (that bloody taskbar disappears too.....;))
i can't wait to get some macs back in my life..........
:D

adamjay
Jun 5, 2004, 02:34 PM
The shared menu bar can be a pain in the butt when you are working on a spanned dual monitor setup. Maybe there could be an option to have the menu bar in each app window?

Maybe a more practical solution would be to have the menu bar for the active application appear on the screen which its window(s) are on.

Good point, its been a while since i worked on dual-monitors and forgot how burdensome sharing 1 menu bar on 2 screens could be. 2 Menu bars in this case would be very logical, and i would still shy away from putting a menu bar on each app window.


Just my 5 cents (we don't have 2c coins anymore in OZ)

Well, thats about three and a half cents US, so close enough :D

iJed
Jun 5, 2004, 03:18 PM
I absolutely hate the menus inside windows idea. I have to use Windows at work every day and its things like this that really piss me off. Related to this is MDI, which is one of the strangest UI abominations that I've ever seen, although it is a slightly better alternative to running multiple copies of an application just to get more than one window. Basically MDI is the result of trying to make menus in windows work in some sort of usable way.

A totally unrelated feature of windows which I hate is the prevalence of tree views. I have nothing really against tree views being used properly but they are NOT a good way to browse complex hierarchies such as the file system. When a tree view is small you begin to have to scroll right and then down (or up) and it just gets really confusing. Give me my column view any day!

elmimmo
Jun 5, 2004, 03:27 PM
Sorry - should have clarified in the original post. Yes, you can use it with letters to navigate through the menus which is v useful - and I use it for that regularly - tho I find the Alt + letter more useful.Actually you do NOT use the Windows key to navigate through menus. That action is limited to the Alt + letter you mentioned. The Windows key is used for system wide shortcuts, no matter what application you are on, which I find rather useful, such as:

Windows + D: Hide all windows and show desktop
Windows + E: Open new Windows Explorer (sort of "Go to Finder and open new window in column view")
Windows + F: Open up "Search for files" dialog.
Windows + R: Run command line string (sort of like "Run Terminal command").
Windows + Pause: Go to System control panel
etc...

I find those rather useful when on a Windows PC, but after years of using Mac OS 9 and X, I do not miss them when on a Mac (and definitely I do NOT miss triggering the Start menu by accident).

stcanard
Jun 5, 2004, 04:40 PM
The shared menu bar can be a pain in the butt when you are working on a spanned dual monitor setup. Maybe there could be an option to have the menu bar in each app window?

Maybe a more practical solution would be to have the menu bar for the active application appear on the screen which its window(s) are on.

Menu bars that span the screen make sense.

I wonder if it's time to go the OS/2 way -- and have everything done by contextual menus. Applying Fitt's law again, it's even faster access than the Mac version.

It takes a little bit of getting used, to, but after a couple of weeks I found it very convenient.

redAPPLE
Jun 5, 2004, 04:54 PM
Your wish is my command

ok genie :p my next wish would be to have a "recent folders" icon on the toolbar...

LeeTom
Jun 5, 2004, 05:31 PM
I love OS X and the mac. I grew up on the mac, but now I use Windows in the business world daily, and there are a few things which I wish that Apple would "copy" from windows.

1) Menu bars in each App window, as opposed to the shared menu bar which changes every time you switch apps.

2) You can change the size of a window from any of the 4 sides! On the mac, you have to get your mouse to the far bottom right to resize a window. This is annoying and often difficult if that portion of the window happens to be off the screen.

Maybe minor things, but I have come to appreciate the windows interface more and more, it allows me to be more productive. Anyone agree?

I completely agree with Oats on both of these points. And for all of you that say that the interface for Mac is "less cluttered", I disagree. Windows has one bar at the bottom (or top or side if you wish), with access to every running window, a popup for programs and settings (Start), and the clock and tray icons.

Mac has something at the top and bottom, sucking away at usable space on the screen. Don't get me wrong, I love my mac, but the interface takes up so much more room. Especially on a wide screen, where the top AND bottom is cut away. Can be annoying.

Krizoitz
Jun 5, 2004, 06:39 PM
I completely agree with Oats on both of these points. And for all of you that say that the interface for Mac is "less cluttered", I disagree. Windows has one bar at the bottom (or top or side if you wish), with access to every running window, a popup for programs and settings (Start), and the clock and tray icons.

And its incredibly cluttered too. It tries to do a billion things, and it does none of them very well. KISS. Keep it Simple Stupid. Microsoft has this terrible idea that cramming a ton of features into one package is the way to go. Apples solution is much better. Make every tool good at what it does and make it easy for them to work together. Such as iLife.

ChrisH3677
Jun 5, 2004, 08:48 PM
#1 I used to agree. But now I've got used to it, I find on Windows it annoys me that there's no top menu bar. Last week in fact, I was in a panic because an application I was using in Windows, did not have menu bar so I didn't know how to intuitively find the function i wanted.

Therefore, the Apple menu bar presents a more consistent interface. (Not to say tho, that OSX is consistent.)

I do agree tho it should be visible on both screens in a dual screen setup. And also there should be a shortcut key to the Apple menu.

Also, I've done IT support in Windows environments as long as its been around, and most users run their apps maximized... so their menu bar is essentially at the top of the screen anyway!


#2 Agree, but it's not a big deal, unless as you say, the resize corner is not visible. But then... maybe the Zoom button is what you need.

Whoever said replace the Zoom button with Maximize, I totally disagree with. Again, one of those things that takes some getting used to, but now I really see it's value. It annoys me now when an app is maximed (my online banking does this in Safari)

It's taken me a long time to get used to the OSX interface, but now there's not much I'd change about it.

jaw04005
Jun 5, 2004, 10:17 PM
From a programming standpoint, it makes sense to have the menus connected to the main window. In NeXTStep, this is how the menus worked. For Mac OS X, they changed it to a single menu bar at the top since Mac OS applications didn't necessarily have a main window and legacy users would revolt. There were far fewer NeXTStep users, so it didn't really matter to Apple if they did revolt.

Rather than have all sides of a window allow re-sizing, I would like to see a system menu. This is where you press alt-space bar and get a menu of moving and re-sizing options available from the keyboard.

If there is one thing that Windows does better above all other things, it's that you can do file management within file open and save dialog boxes. Apple would do well to implement this in their navigation services. How many times have you been in an application trying to save something only to find that you have something that needs to be renamed? Sure, you can open a Finder window and go through all the motions, but don't the extra steps seem rather Windows-like? Being able to rename within the save dialog box makes for an efficient solution.

Couldn't agree with you more. That happens to me all the time in Photoshop. I don't see why this was not since day one.

Earendil
Jun 5, 2004, 10:30 PM
different strokes for different people, i guess. this is the one aspect of Macs that i have not got used to, or reconciled with. when i close the last window, i truely want the app to quit. why on earth shd the app keep running, when there is nothing for it to do; it shd just re-start when I TELL it to! i finally end up with a bunch of apps that are hanging around doing nothing, each of which i need to 'Command-Q' to stop.

or go to menu and "quit". I'm not sure how the "command q" might be different from a command to close a window...

while i am here, i have to say that a number of apps do not respond well after the last window is closed. if i try to click the icon on the dock, nothing happens other than the menu appearing on the top. confusing as hell. i end up terminating the app and restarting it. Talk of extra work! Has anybody else seen this?
(Mozilla does this all the time, and Safari does it too, though in-frequently. )

I couldn't for the world understand what you meant for a while, but now I get it. The menu bar is there, so just bring up a "new window" (Command-N) and you're set!

And I'm not sure why some people don't understand the program open no window deal. Maybe because I am a power user, and keep a few heavy loading apps open, but I fully enjoy not having a window open for an app to stay open. I keep programs like PS and iMove open so that I don't have to wait for them to start up. I frequently use both, but don't keep projects open in each at all times.

I also have a few apps that DO NOT exist as windows, and yet have menus and functions. How would windows handle these types of programs? Dedicate a window to them just so you can get at a menu bar?

Earendil
Jun 5, 2004, 10:40 PM
I completely agree with Oats on both of these points. And for all of you that say that the interface for Mac is "less cluttered", I disagree. Windows has one bar at the bottom (or top or side if you wish), with access to every running window, a popup for programs and settings (Start), and the clock and tray icons.

Mac has something at the top and bottom, sucking away at usable space on the screen. Don't get me wrong, I love my mac, but the interface takes up so much more room. Especially on a wide screen, where the top AND bottom is cut away. Can be annoying.

Uh... ok, I'll field this one too. I believe the top menu under OSX is smaller than the Windows equivalent. As for the dock, it can be told to hide until brought up with either a keystroke or else just touching the side. It can also go on any side of the screen (aside from the top of course). Not only that, with the Genie effect I can have FAR more apps open and *easy* to get too than there is actual room for in the dock. Give it a shot, it's awesome.

I actually wish OSX could have multiple docks on different sides of the screen, all of which were hidden until touched on. I find that XP's bar at the bottom gets cluttered really fast with "windows" instead of apps, and they become unreadable and keep from seeing what you need.

Tyler
Earendil

bousozoku
Jun 6, 2004, 12:02 AM
...
or go to menu and "quit". I'm not sure how the "command q" might be different from a command to close a window...



Command-q and Command-w have always had different meanings since of course, you could have several documents open and just need to closer certain documents rather than quitting the whole application.

I think it's up to the individual to pick up on the difference and learn it. It's really not necessary for Apple to change the way they've handled the Close Window functionality after 20+ years. There was/is a customisation/hack out there that checks for the last window and will quit the application, if someone is completely unable to acclimate him/herself.

When the Windows 95 interface arrived, it was confusing. Prior to it, you closed any window by using ctrl-F4 or the close box. Closing the last window in Windows 3.x and earlier did not quit the application. Suddenly in Windows 95, some windows were closed using ctrl-F4 and others required alt-F4. This depends mostly on whether the application supports MDI but the inconsistency is disconcerting at best.

neoelectronaut
Jun 6, 2004, 12:07 AM
I actually wish OSX could have multiple docks on different sides of the screen, all of which were hidden until touched on. I find that XP's bar at the bottom gets cluttered really fast with "windows" instead of apps, and they become unreadable and keep from seeing what you need.

Tyler
Earendil

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe this IS a app/haxie for that for OS X. I'll look it up.

Edit: This, for example: http://www.dockfun.com/

There are others, mind you.

Earendil
Jun 6, 2004, 12:15 AM
I'm not entirely sure, but I believe this IS a app/haxie for that for OS X. I'll look it up.

That'd be awesome if you found one! Please post it or PM me. I browse Versiontracker every so often looking for just this sort of utility. I found one that let's you change docks, which is close, but doesn't allow multiple docks open at once.

Tyler
Earendil

Earendil
Jun 6, 2004, 12:24 AM
or go to menu and "quit". I'm not sure how the "command q" might be different from a command to close a window...


Command-q and Command-w have always had different meanings since of course, you could have several documents open and just need to closer certain documents rather than quitting the whole application..../herself.

Horrible way of trying to say what I was trying to say on my part. I meant that, functionally, and simplicity wise, what is the difference between "command q" on the mac, and a similar command to close a window under XP. I was trying to understand how using "Command-Q" was such a problem when compared to the Windows alternative.

Personally, I don't have any problems dealing with and understanding the difference between command q and w ;)

Tyler
Earendil

bousozoku
Jun 6, 2004, 01:30 AM
Horrible way of trying to say what I was trying to say on my part. I meant that, functionally, and simplicity wise, what is the difference between "command q" on the mac, and a similar command to close a window under XP. I was trying to understand how using "Command-Q" was such a problem when compared to the Windows alternative.

Personally, I don't have any problems dealing with and understanding the difference between command q and w ;)

Tyler
Earendil

As I mentioned, before Win95, it was consistently ctrl-F4 to close a window and alt-F4 (I didn't mention this) to quit the application. From Win95 onward, it's a mix--there is nothing truly equivalent to the single Command-Q functionality. However, you can click on the close box of the main window of a Windows application and that will signal that the application should quit, as Command-Q does on Mac OS or Mac OS X.

wesli_1
Jun 6, 2004, 03:28 AM
I wonder if it's time to go the OS/2 way -- and have everything done by contextual menus. Applying Fitt's law again, it's even faster access than the Mac version.

Wasn't there a version of Mac OS that used radial menus?

LethalWolfe
Jun 6, 2004, 03:46 AM
I guess I'm the odd-man-out but I like the fact that only one monitor in a dual monitor setup gets the menu bar. But I use FCP, After Effects, and PS a lot so having a 2nd menu bar taking up space for no good reason on my 2nd monitor would annoy me.


Lethal

legion
Jun 6, 2004, 05:25 AM
I also have a few apps that DO NOT exist as windows, and yet have menus and functions. How would windows handle these types of programs? Dedicate a window to them just so you can get at a menu bar?

No, that's what the system tray does. Those apps can have no windows and yet give you menus. I can glide my mouse over any of the icons and if I wanted, programatically, have the menu just popup with no window.

legion
Jun 6, 2004, 05:30 AM
Uh... ok, I'll field this one too. I believe the top menu under OSX is smaller than the Windows equivalent. As for the dock, it can be told to hide until brought up with either a keystroke or else just touching the side. It can also go on any side of the screen (aside from the top of course). Not only that, with the Genie effect I can have FAR more apps open and *easy* to get too than there is actual room for in the dock. Give it a shot, it's awesome.

I actually wish OSX could have multiple docks on different sides of the screen, all of which were hidden until touched on. I find that XP's bar at the bottom gets cluttered really fast with "windows" instead of apps, and they become unreadable and keep from seeing what you need.

Tyler
Earendil

You can have the windows bar (auto-hide) disappear out of sight too when not in use and move it about the screen edges. Also "group-similar taskbar buttons" puts all your windows for one app together so you don't have multiple windws. Both can be found by right-clicking on the taskbar and selecting properties (and using the "taskbar" tab)

radhak
Jun 6, 2004, 06:08 AM
or go to menu and "quit". I'm not sure how the "command q" might be different from a command to close a window...

i am just saying that keeping the app open after the last window was closed is a waste of resources.

while i am here, i have to say that a number of apps do not respond well after the last window is closed. if i try to click the icon on the dock, nothing happens other than the menu appearing on the top. confusing as hell. i end up terminating the app and restarting it. Talk of extra work! Has anybody else seen this?
(Mozilla does this all the time, and Safari does it too, though in-frequently. )
I couldn't for the world understand what you meant for a while, but now I get it. The menu bar is there, so just bring up a "new window" (Command-N) and you're set!

i did not realize that works - useful to know that the app is not 'hanging' :confused:
still, an extra step - get to the app (Cmd-Tab/click-on-dock), then Cmd-N.if the app was not running, clicking the icon would open the app, and the window.

And I'm not sure why some people don't understand the program open no window deal. Maybe because I am a power user, and keep a few heavy loading apps open, but I fully enjoy not having a window open for an app to stay open. I keep programs like PS and iMove open so that I don't have to wait for them to start up. I frequently use both, but don't keep projects open in each at all times.

i would think that any app that takes perceptible time to open would also be a perceptible drag on memory and cpu resources if kept running even when not in use, however efficient be OSX's multi-threading... but i guess makes sense to keep them running if you use them frequently :shrug:


There was/is a customisation/hack out there that checks for the last window and will quit the application
good idea, i could hunt that up, thanks.

elmimmo
Jun 6, 2004, 06:38 AM
i am just saying that keeping the app open after the last window was closed is a waste of resources.Well, you see, there are colors for all tastes. I have been more a Windows user than a Mac user, and in fact DO like it that an application does not quit unless I explicitely tellit too. I find it rather handy to have open apps without taking up screen space, ready to pop up instantly if I click on their dock icon. I use this for apps such as Suitcase, Mail and others. True, there is the hiding functionality, but its got different uses for me. And in fact it is really similar to some apps in Windows that ue traditional MDI interface. You do not quit Photoshop if you close the last open document, and it makes sense. The difference is than in Windows it still takes up screen space, while in a Mac it does not.

In fact I find it annoying that apps that cannot have multiple windows open in the Mac, such as iPhoto, quit when you close their only window. It is supposed to be consistent (in the way that this only happens to non-multiwindow apps), but still, I find it annoying.

Krizoitz
Jun 6, 2004, 07:27 AM
i am just saying that keeping the app open after the last window was closed is a waste of resources.

i would think that any app that takes perceptible time to open would also be a perceptible drag on memory and cpu resources if kept running even when not in use, however efficient be OSX's multi-threading... but i guess makes sense to keep them running if you use them frequently :shrug:

While it may consume a few CPU cycles here and there, its certainly not wasting any significant or noticable resources simply to leave an application open if it isn't doing much if anything. Since its not generating any tasks it won't be taxing the CPU unless its a very poorly written program with lots of memory leaks or something.

Not to mention there are many apps that I like to keep open even with no windows. Mail comes to mind. iTunes I usually leave on so people can play songs over the network if they want. I also have eyeTV which I leave open to record programs, but I certainly don't want to have to keep the window open for that. I like Graphic Convertor to stay open too. I may close what I am working on to shift to another program, but I usually have more to work with soon. I also have a program called jiggler that wiggles the mouse every so often, i use it for watching movies or tv so my LCD screen doesn't dim down and so I don't have to change it in Energy Saver.

Anyway, the Mac way is a much cleaner way of doing things. Instead of treating a window as its own instance of an application as Windows does, it relegates it as what it is, a sub task of the over all app.

boomtopper
Jun 6, 2004, 07:32 AM
I think they should change the zoom button to a full screen button like in windows.

Just a thought. :cool:
I Totally agree with you imac guy

1. I found this one annoying at first aswell But when you learn the hotkeys it makes it a lot easier. Also some of the pro Apple Apps have a sub menu bar like Logic Audio for example.
2. This one has never bothered me before but i can see that this would be a good idea now.

Earendil
Jun 6, 2004, 12:54 PM
I think they should change the zoom button to a full screen button like in windows.
Just a thought.

I Totally agree with you imac guy

1. I found this one annoying at first aswell But when you learn the hotkeys it makes it a lot easier. Also some of the pro Apple Apps have a sub menu bar like Logic Audio for example.
2. This one has never bothered me before but i can see that this would be a good idea now.

I NEVER understood this on windows machines. The green button on a Mac makes the window as large as is needed to display the information on the screen. WHY would you want to make it bigger than that?!!
Before safari and tabs, I always used to surf with multiple browser windows (on a modem, easy to multi task), and my windows friends NEVER understood why I wouldn't make the windows as big as the screen. It always seemed like a "no duh" that you wouldn't want it bigger than it needs to be.

Just my thoughts...

Tyler
Earendil
giant-window-phobic

stcanard
Jun 6, 2004, 05:20 PM
i am just saying that keeping the app open after the last window was closed is a waste of resources.


You see, I am on the other side of the fence: I find having to keep a window open just to keep an app running is a waste of resources!

I currently have terminal and mail running, in both cases for fast access and in the case of mail it can keep polling my imap server. But if I had to keep a window open to keep it running (like I do with outlook), well, that's just a waste of screen real-estate (even minimized it takes up space)

Plus, I _really_ like the way that closing a window is always just that: closing a window. I hate it in windows when I'm say editing a something in word, and I close the current window because I think I have another one open elsewhere. I don't, now I've accidentally exited the program, and I have to restart it and watch some stupid splash screen again while I'm drumming my fingers.

Closing a window should do just that: close a window. If you want to exit an app, tell it to exit. iPhoto drives me crazy: I understand why, because there can only ever be one window, but it breaks the metaphor!

And bear in mind this is coming from someone who last September couldn't stand the way applications stayed open. Now that I'm used to it, I can't see why anyone would do it any other way!

SiliconAddict
Jun 7, 2004, 11:31 AM
I love OS X and the mac. I grew up on the mac, but now I use Windows in the business world daily, and there are a few things which I wish that Apple would "copy" from windows.

I have a couple of gripes. More a personal pref for two.

1. Save \ suspend to disk mode. Standby is fast and slick on the Mac but there are instances where I would like to turn off the computer altogether. Save to disk dumps the contents of RAM to the hard drive and physically powers off the computer. Resuming from suspend is WAY faster then a cold startup. Battery life wise this is a nice feature if you are going to have your computer off for an extended length.

2. Personal pref but I like being able to double click on the title bar and max the window. Apple's behavior when doing this minimizes the window. I find myself maxing Windows more then minimizing them so I would find that behavior more useful but again that's a personal pref.

3. Two words. Theme Engine. Stop force-feeding Aqua and metal down people's stinking throats. This is another instance of Apple knows best which, IMHO, is a load. I've seen that this behavior is common with Apple and it irks me. I thought Apple was freedom to innovate? Freedom of choice? There are some cases where Apple and Microsoft's behavior is so close its down right scary. :eek:

4. Built in Remote control \ Remote sessions. Windows XP has terminal services built in which is sweet as heck. Windows XP SP2 is going to allow concurrent connections (I think up to 3) on the system. I wish Apple would implement this.

SiliconAddict
Jun 7, 2004, 11:50 AM
You see, I am on the other side of the fence: I find having to keep a window open just to keep an app running is a waste of resources!


I've started to play around with Macs at the local Apple store and this behavior really bothers me. In windows when you hit the X it closes the App. Simple. To the point. any additional Windows the app contains are contained in that single Window so X simply closes everything. No so on the Mac and I guess I would get use to this in time but it seems like a a tedious process having to use the menu system to close the app. If there is another, faster, way to close the app, other then the obvious keyboard shortcut, I would love to know.
Again in this case it boils down to personal pref. For me when I'm done with an App I close it to keep memory free.




While it may consume a few CPU cycles here and there, its certainly not wasting any significant or noticable resources simply to leave an application open if it isn't doing much if anything. Since its not generating any tasks it won't be taxing the CPU unless its a very poorly written program with lots of memory leaks or something.

Even if you aren't using the app and simply leave it open its going to consume memory and as you go along obviously the more apps you have over the less memory you are going to have. I'm wondering if this is why Mac users are always recommending getting 512MB-1GB of RAM? :confused: Is it a typical habit on the Mac to leave all your apps running?

Oats
Jun 8, 2004, 11:37 AM
I agree with the OP.

I understand why Apple did #1... but I think it is outdated now. Relative distances become an issue. Say you have a screen and have laid out multiple windows (tiled) from different apps so you can work with different info from each. When you make each window active (say the one located in the bottom left corner), the menu is always at the top. However, in Windows, that menu bar is within easy reach. You can adjust something there, make your next app window active just above your previous window and adjust something there without having to go to the top each time. Also, take for instance multiple monitors. You've blown up Word on the left screen and photoshop on the right screen. Well, the menu bar will only stay in one screen so you have to cross monitors to get to settings for at least one app. Both cases are bad for speed. The other thing is that some programs let you use more than one application at once (eg, if a non-restricted modal window is up, you can change paramenters on it and something in the background at once; another case is something like an always-on-top audio mixer where you can adjust things on it and say a background sequencer.)

As for resizing from all edges, I don't understand Apple on this.
A) You can code windows without a border and have it be resizable in Windows XP.

B) Sometimes it's handy to have resize restricted to one direction. For instance, say you have 3 sides just where you want them but just want to stretch out the fourth side. Grabbing corners in OS X, you run the risk of changing 2 sides. Grabbing an edge in windows limits only that dimension to being able to be adjusted, so everything else stays where it is. If you do it from a corner, then you can adjust two dimensions simutaneously (just like OS X.) That's very handy.

C) If you have problems accidentally resizing, why are you clicking and dragging there anyway? First, the icon changes to tell you what you're doing and second, you move a window from its title bar.


Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I hear people saying "too many menus complicates things" but that is largely a factor of what you are used to. In XP, a window thats in the background does not take up much space with its menus, and often they are hidden by the app in the foreground. There is really very little chance to be confused about which menus are for what. It is convenient to have the menus immediately available in the local window, as opposed to flying to the top of the screen and back.

legion
Jun 8, 2004, 12:04 PM
BTW, NeXT didn't follow Apple's Mac OS X format of 1 Apple Bar/Menu Bar. It was like Windows with mulitple menus. Rumour has it they wanted to do the same with Mac OSX, but realized the transition from System9 to OSX was hard enough on the MacUser Base without adding one more major change. So in essence, Apple decided to be stagnant with its design.

I worked on NeXT boxes through college and I definitely see all the stuff in Aqua taken from NeXT-- but the lack of taking the menu system baffles me (but then again, I tend to adapt unlike some users)

stcanard
Jun 8, 2004, 01:12 PM
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

In XP, a window thats in the background does not take up much space with its menus, and often they are hidden by the app in the foreground.

You're right, it's very much a matter of personal preference, and a matter of workflow.

My issue with menus in windows isn't that it's taking up desktop space, but it's taking up space in the viewable area of the window.

In my workflow it is very common for me two have 2 or 3 (or more!) windows open, that I'm referring to, while working in the foreground window. The menu in a window reduces the number of lines of text I can view in the window; all my windows have to be increased accordingly or I have to do more scrolling. So not having all those repeated menus has a very definite negative effect on my workflow.

If you're only working in one application at a time, or have the luxury of completely ignoring the background windows, then it doesn't have an effect on the usable space (since a menu bar at the top of the screen is no smaller than a menu bar inside a window).

The same thing applies to the close last window / close last app issue. If you're used to flipping back and forth between applications constantly, it's useful to be able to keep them resident in memory. If you're used to only working in one app at a time, then it's a waste of resources to keep other apps around.

And, since most of my work is typing (coding), my hands are always on the keyboard, and keyboard shortcuts like command-q are much more convenient than having to go to the mouse and find a little "x" or a little red jellybean.

Santiago
Jun 8, 2004, 01:19 PM
Is it a typical habit on the Mac to leave all your apps running?

I normally have 20-30 apps running at once. Quitting a program to reopen it later is an abject waste of my time.

socokid
Jun 8, 2004, 01:36 PM
when i close the last window, i truely want the app to quit. why on earth shd the app keep running, when there is nothing for it to do;
I quite often have files that I want to use with that app. Should I have to force the app to quit and then re-launch (huge time waster) just because I closed the last window? That seems highly unproductive to me. The computer is ASSUMING I don't want that app open anymore. I hate that with a passion. I open Illustrator, I open a file, I close that window, I open another file, I close that window, etc... In the Windoze world, you would be quitting re-launching the app every single time! WTF? No thank you. I will decide when I'm done with the app, thank you very much. No more worrying about whether the app is quit or not. I opened it, so I can safely assume I will quit it. Much more intuitive.

rueyeet
Jun 8, 2004, 03:50 PM
I grew up on the mac, but now I use Windows in the business world daily, and there are a few things which I wish that Apple would "copy" from windows.

1) Menu bars in each App window, as opposed to the shared menu bar which changes every time you switch apps.As a person who has too often clicked on the wrong Print button because of two different, but closely-juxtaposed, toolbars, I completely disagree with this. I typically have IE at a custom size just under my Access toolbar, but it's the Print button for Access I see first when my eyes move to the top of the screen, because IE's Print button is waaaay over to the right. So whenever I print a webpage I have to consciously make sure that I'm hitting the right button. This is crap, and is not the only example.

2) You can change the size of a window from any of the 4 sides! On the mac, you have to get your mouse to the far bottom right to resize a window. This is annoying and often difficult if that portion of the window happens to be off the screen.Now this one I totally agree with. It's annoying to have to move a window to resize it because the rightmost or bottom side is too close to the screen edge to give me any room. Why can't I just leave the window in place and extend whichever side of the window is handiest?

I think they should change the zoom button to a full screen button like in windows.I completely agree on this, but only because I haven't actually figured out what, exactly, that little green button in OS X does. That middle button in Windows consistently toggles between two states: full-screen, and whatever size you've set the window to. OS X's little green button seems to go from whatever size I've set the window to, and whatever size the application says it should be. And there is no way to quickly and consistently make an application window fill the screen (yes, sometimes I find the need for that).

I completely agree with Oats on both of these points. And for all of you that say that the interface for Mac is "less cluttered", I disagree. Windows has one bar at the bottom (or top or side if you wish), with access to every running window, a popup for programs and settings (Start), and the clock and tray icons.

Mac has something at the top and bottom, sucking away at usable space on the screen. Don't get me wrong, I love my mac, but the interface takes up so much more room. Especially on a wide screen, where the top AND bottom is cut away. Can be annoying.

Windows has one bar at the bottom, but don't forget that it also has a menu bar for every visible window, and usually a row of toolbar buttons under each and every visible menu bar. The Dock can be hidden just like the Taskbar can, so that's equivalent, but I find that having yet another menubar/toolbar combo taking up space in every visible window consumes more real estate than the Mac's single, omnipresent menubar.

Two words. Theme Engine. Stop force-feeding Aqua and metal down people's stinking throats. Hell yeah. It's so absolutely trivial in Windows to set the color of all your window elements--title bar, menu bar, menu highlights, message boxes, window text--WHY is this verboten under the Mac OS? What happened to Think Different? OS X makes up for all of its interface issues with the Dock, single menu bar, and easy-to-locate Preferences (both system and Application) EXCEPT for the theme thing.

As someone else noted, the Windows Taskbar tries to do too much. Get enough programs running, and the thing is nearly useless. The Start button and system tray take away space for showing you your windows. And the Start button isn't as useful as all that...why else do so many Windows users plaster their desktop with application shortcut icons? Why does Microsoft include the Office Shortcut Bar? To provide faster ways to launch programs than the Start menu, that's why.

With the Dock, I don't need desktop shortcuts or a shortcut bar, because it simply and elegantly provides the functions of both. A quick visual check shows me what's running. Instead of reducing the space available for those functions with a system tray, the Mac moves that stuff to the otherwise empty right-hand side of the Menu Bar.

The Windows Control Panel is inconsistent and overcomplicated in comparison to OS X's System Preferences. Also, application preferences/settings in Windows never seem to be in the same menu. One program will have it under Tools, another under View, another under Edit....in OS X it's always in the Application menu, and it's always in the same place. This alone is a huge, huge advantage to the Mac.