Closing An Application By The Red Button

[Dunepilot]

I hate the way that Windows handles this too. I do find it annoying when iPhoto behaves in that way, also. Seems inconsistent to me.

One thing that I don't think made the OS 9 - OS X transition is the command-shift-Q function, that used to quit all open applications. I used to use that quite a lot.

 

[MacBoobsPro]

I still am somewhat surprised when applications like iPhoto actually quit-quit when you click the red button.

I know it's because it's a single-window application, but it just seems out-of-place when it does that.

Yeh its weird. It feels like it something has gone wrong.

*shudders*

 

[dpaanlka]

what benefit is there in running an app without any way of actually USING the app? The fact that it opens a fraction of a second faster the next time you launch the app?

It doesn't open faster, it is open. Maybe that makes no difference in TextEdit, but in many other apps that you probably don't use it does. Even on my Mac Pro. Waiting for any app to re-launch is always going to be infinitely more time consuming than the ability to instantaneously begin working in the app.

And what did you do? Say that there's no point in discussing it since it will not be changed, and then you proceeded to whine about Windows. "This is the way it has always been and this is the way it shall always be! So stop talking about it!"

Several explanations were given to which you still claim to not understand. And yes, of course I'm going to "whine" about Windows - you're whinning about how my operating system of choice for years does not work the way you're used to in Windows.

And minimizing doesn't make any sense on a Mac since all documents are in independent windows (thankfully the terrible concept of a window child doesn't exist on a Mac). If I'm done with a document, it's gone. And the app is still running.

You're making it sound like I'm trying to squash free speech by ending discussion about some worldly topic like racism or disease. We're talking about closing an app the Windows way vs. a Mac way here. There are two ways. You now know the reasons they're different. What purpose is there to go on? What more is there that you want to know?

 

[RacerX]

[*]What is the benefit of having a program completely quit just because you closed the last window? Now I have to wait for this crap to re-launch?​

if you simply want the app to "go away" without closing it, you can minimize it. That way you can actually continue from where you left off. And I can (again) repeat my question: what benefit is there in running an app without any way of actually USING the app? The fact that it opens a fraction of a second faster the next time you launch the app?

The problem with minimizing is that you are assuming that the window is the app... in the Mac world, generally a window is a document within an app and not an instance of an app itself.

If I finish with a document in TextEdit... I close the document. That doesn't mean that I'm finished with TextEdit, I may want to start another document. But by what you are saying, I have to keep that last document open to start another document in the app.

[*]What is the benefit of maximizing every pointless window to take up the entire screen?​

Well, I have noticed that it helps me focus on the task at hand when I can only see the one app I'm using.

This is exactly why I've always said that Windows is the perfect system for secretaries, gamers and people who do data entry. Using Windows is like working with blinders on... you can't see any other app, so you can't be distracted.

But that strength is the primary weakness for those of us who use two or three apps in concert while working on a project... Macs are designed for users to multitask.


Most of your misconceptions about how things should be stem from Windows' rooted application environment (which is a leftover from back when Windows was a graphical shell for apps running on DOS). Mac and Unix users of the late 80's and 90's considered the Windows' rooted app environment to be one of it's biggest shortcomings as it kept users from working in more than one app at any one time.

Even with web browsing, I find it very important to see the desktop of my system as I am often dragging items out of my browser onto my desktop. And in fact most of my apps are designed to work nicely with drag-n-drop... something quite foreign for Windows users as the whole idea behind drag-n-drop requires line of sight between two or more applications (including the Finder's desktop). The rooted app environment of Windows effectively eliminates the users ability to do this.


Frankly, new Mac users should look at everything about a Mac as being done for a reason. By contrast, many things about Windows are there because in the beginning Windows was just a shell.

 

[Evangelion]

It doesn't open faster, it is open.

as far as the user is concerned, it's not open. the user has no way to view the content the app is dispaying, nor does he have any means to interact with the app. if the app is not visible and it's not doing anything, is it really running? and in any case, you are arguing semantics

Maybe that makes no difference in TextEdit, but in many other apps that you probably don't use it does. Even on my Mac Pro. Waiting for any app to re-launch is always going to be infinitely more time consuming than the ability to instantaneously begin working in the app.

if that is the only benefit to be had, why not simply minimize the app?

Several explanations were given to which you still claim to not understand

i do understand. i just dont see the benefit as that important, and i can see other ways of achieving same results.

And yes, of course I'm going to "whine" about Windows - you're whinning about how my operating system of choice for years does not work the way you're used to in Windows.

what makes you think windows is my "os of choice"? in reality i dislike windows and prefer os x. that said, i still dont see the point of closing windows instead of apps.

And minimizing doesn't make any sense on a Mac since all documents are in independent windows

i fail to see how that makes minmizing pointless

(thankfully the terrible concept of a window child doesn't exist on a Mac). If I'm done with a document, it's gone. And the app is still running

if you are through using the app, why should the app be left running?

You're making it sound like I'm trying to squash free speech by ending discussion about some worldly topic like racism or disease. We're talking about closing an app the Windows way vs. a Mac way here. There are two ways. You now know the reasons they're different. What purpose is there to go on? What more is there that you want to know?

yes i know the reason, and i don't buy it. so the app loads a fraction of a second faster if the user re-launches it. well whooppee.

but hey, if you do not want to talk about it, then dont. but fact is that you seemed to get overtly defensive over this issue.

 

[JNB]

Actually, the question should properly be, why doesn't Windows do it like a Mac? Remember, we (the Mac users) have been doing it this way since 1984. Windows users didn't start until much later.

Seriously, though, it's called product differentiation. Every competing manufacturer/publisher does it. Cars, microwaves, TV's, everything. It's not like there's an official standard or anything.

Actually, Apple's method should be the standard, if there was to be one, since we started it.

Sorry, there I go again...

 

[Evangelion]

This is exactly why I've always said that Windows is the perfect system for secretaries, gamers and people who do data entry. Using Windows is like working with blinders on... you can't see any other app, so you can't be distracted.

But that strength is the primary weakness for those of us who use two or three apps in concert while working on a project... Macs are designed for users to multitask.

accordong to studies, multitasking hurts productivity

Most of your misconceptions about how things should be

where exactly am i saying that the mac should change the behavior of the red button? i asked why it does what it does, and i didn't buy the rationale i was given.

Even with web browsing, I find it very important to see the desktop of my system as I am often dragging items out of my browser onto my desktop.

well, that is how even windows works....

[quoteAnd in fact most of my apps are designed to work nicely with drag-n-drop... something quite foreign for Windows users[/quote]

i can assure you that windows-users are quite familiar wih drag and drop.

 

[RacerX]

as far as the user is concerned, it's not open. the user has no way to view the content the app is dispaying, nor does he have any means to interact with the app. if the app is not visible and it's not doing anything, is it really running? and in any case, you are arguing semantics

Do you even use Macs?

Even with all windows closed, apps still display there menus... please explain how this can satisfy the following:

• "the user has no way to view the content the app is dispaying"
• "nor does he have any means to interact with the ap"p
• "if the app is not visible and it's not doing anything, is it really running?"

If the document windows are all closed, the app isn't displaying content... just waiting for the next document to be worked on. The user still has all the menus to interact with (like creating a new document) and the app is visible in that all it's menus are still there and it's icon is active in the dock.

How can you be using a Mac and make your assertions?

accordong to studies, multitasking hurts productivity

What studies?

More importantly, until there is a single app that can do everything for any of my projects, I'll be multitasking.



Sure, it would be nice if my video editor also edited audio and did special effects... but it doesn't. And yeah, it would be nice if my web design app or page layout did illustration, image editing and word processing... but they don't.

So until such time as we are given the Universal application that does it all... I sure can't see where multitasking hurts productivity.

Of course, as you pointed out, you can't multitask... so I don't expect you to understand.

i asked why it does what it does, and i didn't buy the rationale i was given.

Sorry, but the rationale that was given is the reason things work the way they do.

Buy it, don't buy it, I don't care. The only person who loses out by fighting how their computer works is the user... in this case, you.

It doesn't change the fact that the Windows actions you are talking about are all based on a rooted application environment. And even apps in other operating systems (like NeXT and SGI) all worked like the Mac back in the days of Windows 3.x because their apps weren't rooted in a single window.

well, that is how even windows works....

i can assure you that windows-users are quite familiar wih drag and drop

Windows apps like Photoshop are trapped in a root window... this window covers the screen and all other image windows are actually sub-windows of the root window. How can you drag-n-drop with the desktop if you can't even see it?

I highly doubt that you are a drag-n-drop type of guy... the concept would hurt your productivity (being the one-app-at-a-time type of person you claim to be).


It is funny... there really isn't any argument here. You've had your questions answered, and if that isn't enough for you... well, there really isn't anything any of us can do to help you further.

From my point of view, you are basically upset that a square peg won't fit in a round hole and you don't buy the rationale as to why it doesn't.

 

[dpaanlka]

if that is the only benefit to be had, why not simply minimize the app?

Because you can't "minimize an app" on a Mac - you can only minimize their documents. I don't want to minimize documents which I have no intention on working on anymore.

if you are through using the app, why should the app be left running?

Maybe I plan on working on a new document in a few minutes, once I finish other tasks.

yes i know the reason, and i don't buy it. so the app loads a fraction of a second faster if the user re-launches it. well whooppee.

Photoshop takes about 12 seconds to launch on my Mac Pro. InDesign takes about 20. You obviously don't do much beside web browsing and word processing.

but fact is that you seemed to get overtly defensive over this issue.

I agree. I am defending the reasonable, efficient, and productive way in which the Mac OS has always functioned.

I highly doubt that you are a drag-n-drop type of guy... the concept would hurt your productivity (being the one-app-at-a-time type of person you claim to be).

Most Windows users believe "drag and drop" only pertains to manipulating file icons. I'm sure Evangelion falls into this category. In fact, reading this sentence, it's possible he may not even understand what we're talking about.

 

[prostuff1]

but hey, if you do not want to talk about it, then dont. but fact is that you seemed to get overtly defensive over this issue.

Dude, this "issue" has been covered many, many, times. And frankly mac users get tired of answering the question and trying to "explain" it to switchers.

It is the way it is and you just have to get use to it.

I hate to sound like an a** but this question has been beat to death and when you say, "I just don't buy that answer" you are asking for the responses to get nastier.

 

[solvs]

Um, hold the mouse button for a second over the app in the Dock and choose Quit.

 

[Evangelion]

Because you can't "minimize an app" on a Mac - you can only minimize their documents.

Don't you have anything better to do than argue semantics? "It does not open faster, it is open", "You do not minimize apps, you just minimize their documents". When I minimize iPhoto, what am I minimizing: It's "documents" or the app? When I minimize Safari, what am I minimizing: It's "documents" or the app?

Photoshop takes about 12 seconds to launch on my Mac Pro. InDesign takes about 20. You obviously don't do much beside web browsing and word processing.

In case like that, simply leave the app running as it is. I fail to see the benefit of the red button.

I agree. I am defending the reasonable, efficient, and productive way in which the Mac OS has always functioned.

There is a difference between "defending" and "overtly defensive".

Most Windows users believe "drag and drop" only pertains to manipulating file icons. I'm sure Evangelion falls into this category.

Wanna buy a "jump to conclusions mat"? And what exactly makes you think that I'm a "Windows user"? Granted, I use Windows at work, but at home I use OS X, have used for over two years now.

In fact, reading this sentence, it's possible he may not even understand what we're talking about.

I'm well aware what we are talking about.

 

[Evangelion]

Do you even use Macs?

Yep.

Even with all windows closed, apps still display there menus

Unless you switch to some other app.

What studies?

Such as this. Or this. And this

More importantly, until there is a single app that can do everything for any of my projects, I'll be multitasking.

But it really efficient to spend few minutes in one app, then switch over to some other app for few minutes, then switch again to some other app and so forth? Survey says: no.

Of course, as you pointed out, you can't multitask... so I don't expect you to understand.

Holy superiority-complex Batman! I said that multitasking is not the Holy Grail of productivity we are led to believe, and for some reason you equate that with "you can't multitask". I can multitask just fine. Propably just as well as you can. What I did say was that according to studies, we would be more efficient doing one task at a time, instead of slicing up our time in to small pieces and distributing those to several different things.

I highly doubt that you are a drag-n-drop type of guy... the concept would hurt your productivity (being the one-app-at-a-time type of person you claim to be).

Where exactly did I say that I run one app at a time? Please provide me with specific quotes or admit that you were wrong. And I drag and drop all the time. I drag and drop files from one place to the other, I drag and drop content between apps (pictures, text etc.) and inside apps, I drag and drop when I install apps, I drag and drop to move icons to different location, I drag and drop windows to new locations... Yet I apparently don't know how to drag and drop? Pray tell: what magical drag and drop technique am I missing here?

Seriously: I questioned the rationale of one of Mac OS's design-ideas and what do I get? Mac-jihadists start arguing that "You can't multitask!" or "you don't know how to drag and drop!".

From my point of view, you are basically upset that a square peg won't fit in a round hole and you don't buy the rationale as to why it doesn't.

I'm not "upset". I simply asked "what's the point of this thing? What benefit does it give?". I'm not demanding that it should be changed or anything like that. It seems to me that you are confusing me with the original poster who wanted to change it so that it closes the app instead of the window. As I have been using OS X for over two years now, I have grown accustomed to how the red button works, but that doesn't mean that I fully understand the rationale behind it. The usual explanation is that it makes it faster to re-launch the app. But that has never been an issue for me.

 

[Evangelion]

And, FWIW: RacerX actually was the first to provide me with an explanation that makes sense, besides the ol' "it makes it faster to launch the app".

 

[dpaanlka]

I'm not "upset". I simply asked "what's the point of this thing? What benefit does it give?". I'm not demanding that it should be changed or anything like that. It seems to me that you are confusing me with the original poster who wanted to change it so that it closes the app instead of the window. As I have been using OS X for over two years now, I have grown accustomed to how the red button works, but that doesn't mean that I fully understand the rationale behind it. The usual explanation is that it makes it faster to re-launch the app. But that has never been an issue for me.

The thing is, that's just the way it works. It makes sense to long time Mac users. It makes sense to me. It makes sense to RacerX. Whether or not it has any benefit to you is completely irrelevant. It's not Apple's job to completely replicate the Windows experience for (relatively) recent switchers. Everyone gave you plenty of reasons why it is the way it is. Continuing to question that is going to get you harsh responses on MacRumors.

 

[Evangelion]

Everyone gave you plenty of reasons why it is the way it is.

Not really. First reply (from Tobefirst) repeated the "it makes it faster to re-launch the app"-argument. Second reply was from you which didn't provide any other rationale than "that's the way it has always worked", before you went on to ask questions about Windows (and since I don't really care that much about Windows, I didn't really understand why you were asking me those questions. Maybe because you thought I was some kind of gung-ho Windows-user?). Third reply was from you where you proceeded to argue semantics and say "several explanations were given to you" (when in reality I had only received one re-hashed explanation). It wasn't until next reply from RacerX which provided me with another piece of rationale, and it was something that actually made some sense.

Continuing to question that is going to get you harsh responses on MacRumors.

Can you speak for all of MacRumors? Why would discussion regarding the usage-paradigm of certain piece of MacOS-UI receive "harsh responses"? is such discussion verboten?

 

[Dunepilot]

I think that RacerX did a pretty good job of articulating the benefits of working with multiple applications open, and of keeping them open when the last active window within that application is closed. This would be one of the top-5 reasons why I hate using Windows.

I also think that the way that the Dock provides you with the little black triangles giving visual feedback as to which apps are active is a big improvement over Mac OS 9, where hardly anyone that I encountered seemed to understand that your active applications were all listed in a menu at the top right hand corner of your screen.

 

[210]

Also, it might have helped to do a search before posting this question. It has been asked many, many, many times and it is one of those things a switcher has to get use to. Lets try not to beat a dead horse.

I did a search and couldn't find anything relevant.

Don't get me wrong, I have had a Mac since 1994, but this is one thing I would like as a choice to have. I'm not saying Apple should change it for everyone, but a choice of what you would like would be nice.

Someone earlier said to just go to the dock and quit, but surely it's easier to just click the red box. Having several applications running, even in the background slows down my machine and I just think that one click would be better (for some) than fiddling with shortcuts.

I know you'lll say just get more RAM, which I will.

 

[RacerX]

Unless you switch to some other app.

Which doesn't address the issue of why an app should close when the last document window has been closed... just because I have finished with a document does not logically yield that I must also be finished with the application itself.

Such as this. Or this. And this

Did you actually read your links? Just skimming them I see the following:

Link 1: Multitasking as multiple duties
Link 2: Multitasking as multiple learning situations
Link 3: Multitasking as information gathering​

Not one of these addresses the use of multiple tools to complete projects... and applications are, after all, tools. And one of the things that sets human beings apart from other animals that use tools is our ability to use multiple tools in concert to solve complex problems.

But it really efficient to spend few minutes in one app, then switch over to some other app for few minutes, then switch again to some other app and so forth? Survey says: no.

Back in the late 80s I worked at Alan Johnson Racing on Porsches. When I found out what I needed to fix on a car I would grab the tools I needed for fixing whatever was wrong. But by what you are saying, I should have taken out the first tool I needed, walked over, used it, walked back to my toolbox, put it away, grabbed the next tool, walked back to the car, used it, walked back to my toolbox, put it away, grabbed the next tool... etc. And even if I use the same tool multiple times, you are saying I should have put it away after each time I used it.

Is that really an efficient way to work with tools?

Survey actually says: NO

You're what, 14? I don't expect you to have any experience in completing complex tasks because you aren't old enough to have seen many. I also don't expect you to understand the distinction I made here between information multitasking and tools multitasking.

Holy superiority-complex Batman! I said that multitasking is not the Holy Grail of productivity we are led to believe, and for some reason you equate that with "you can't multitask". I can multitask just fine. Propably just as well as you can. What I did say was that according to studies, we would be more efficient doing one task at a time, instead of slicing up our time in to small pieces and distributing those to several different things.

It is not superiority to have life experiences, nor should you feel inferior because of your lack of them. In this case you lack the experience to see the difference between applications as tools and applications as projects... I would guess that your experiences have been limited to using a single application for a single project (or the projects you've worked on aren't complex so as to not need multiple apps), where as I use apps as tools, going back and forth between apps to perform what is needed to finish my projects.

You should take this into account when attempting to debate things which you lack experience in though.

Where exactly did I say that I run one app at a time? Please provide me with specific quotes or admit that you were wrong.

Evangelion said:

"Well, I have noticed that it helps me focus on the task at hand when I can only see the one app I'm using."​

Further, your argument has been that multitasking (which you have equated to the use of multiple apps) is "not the Holy Grail of productivity we are led to believe". Additionally, I quoted you in this very post stating:

"But it really efficient to spend few minutes in one app, then switch over to some other app for few minutes, then switch again to some other app and so forth? Survey says: no."​

Please try not to say things and then forget what you've said. It actually hurts your credibility.

I'm not "upset".

Sorry, I would rather think that the inconsistencies within your arguments are due to emotional out bursts than an inability to maintain a consistent train of thought. I can deal with emotional factors clouding a person's logic, it doesn't detract from the person's actual abilities to reason in the long run... but when people are just confused from start to finish, there isn't much hope for that type of person.

For my benefit, please allow me the illusion of you being upset so I don't lose all respect for you here.


Edit: I just realized that I mistook you for a different poster who was 14... That negates a lot of the allowances I made for youth and inexperience on your part. Maybe it is best to chalk all of that up to clouded logic due to the amount of emotion you've invested here instead.



Though I was more impressed when I thought you were younger... Oh well.

 

[Evangelion]

Not one of these addresses the use of multiple tools to complete projects

Multitasking in this context usually refers to doing separate things at the same time. For example doing work in Photoshop while having a discussion with a friend in IM. And all the studies I linked to show that such multitasking hurts productivity. What you are talking about isn't really multitasking, it's just one bigger tasks divided in to separate parts. But when people talk of "multitasking", they are usually talking about doing several separate tasks at the same time. For example: IM'ing and word-processing at the same time.

You're what, 14? I don't expect you to have any experience in completing complex tasks because you aren't old enough to have seen many.

I also don't expect you to understand the distinction I made here between information multitasking and tools multitasking.

I understand the difference just fine.

Is that really an efficient way to work with tools?

That wasn't what I was saying at all.

Evangelion said:

"Well, I have noticed that it helps me focus on the task at hand when I can only see the one app I'm using."​

Let's hear it for reading-comprehension! Does that quote say that I ONLY use one app at a time? That I do so because I'm incapable of handling several apps at once? No. What it does say that I occasionally use just one app at a time, and it helps me focus on that one task if that's the only thing visible, as opposed of having IM-chat going on in the background for example. Should I forcibly try to have several apps/tasks running simultaneously, because if I didn't, it would be a clear sign of my inability to multitask? If I have no need of going outside certain app, why shouldn't it be full-screen? Because I couldn't "multitask" then?

A good example of this approach is Nisus Writer Express: A word-processor. It features a full-screen mode, and by full-screen I mean REAL full-screen. No menus or toolbars, just the text. Why? So the user could focus on the text. The text is the only thing that is visible, no other UI-elements are present. And the reason for that is that the less distractions there are, the more focused the user can be to the task at hand.

Though I was more impressed when I thought you were younger... Oh well.

You just broke my heart.

 

[MacAnkka]

Don't you have anything better to do than argue semantics? "It does not open faster, it is open", "You do not minimize apps, you just minimize their documents". When I minimize iPhoto, what am I minimizing: It's "documents" or the app? When I minimize Safari, what am I minimizing: It's "documents" or the app?

When you "minimize safari", you are indeed minimizing the documents -- or to be more precise, the websites -- not the application itself. The application itself is still running on top and you can use the menubar (or keyboard shortcuts) to open new windows, empty the cache, go to the settings page and so on.

iPhoto is indeed different, though. Because of that it works exactly the way you want it to: if you press the red circe, it shuts the application, too.

You still don't seem to understand how annoying it would be if applications would quit if all the windows were closed, though. Imagine if you had to work with dozens, maybe even hundreds, of images in a day using Photoshop. Don't you think it would be a little bit frustrating to constantly make sure you always have at least one image open to prevent the whole app from shutting down and having to wait 20 seconds for it to open again? And having to leave the last image you worked with open, just because you think you might need the app again in a while is a little bit counter-intuitive, don't you think?

 

[Evangelion]

When you "minimize safari", you are indeed minimizing the documents -- or to be more precise, the websites -- not the application itself.

Liike I said: semantics. For all intents and purposes it is the app that is minimizing to the Dock. Yes the menubar is still there, but the app without it's content is not much of a use.

You still don't seem to understand how annoying it would be if applications would quit if all the windows were closed, though.

In fact, I do.

 

[Cooknn]

There are apps, like System Preferences, that don't have a function if there's no window open, so clicking the red button does in fact quit the entire program.

I never slowed down to figure that one out Calculator is a good example. Thanks for that explanation!

 

[MacAnkka]

Liike I said: semantics.

And I disagree with you there. This is not about semantics. If all the documents are closed/minimized, the application itself is still there it is there for good reasons. Thinking otherwise is silly and can be a real disadvantage sometimes.

For all intents and purposes it is the app that is minimizing to the Dock.

For all intents and purposes? Hardly. The menu bar is not there just for decoration, you know. There is still plenty of meaningful stuff that you can with the menu bar, even with no documents open/visible.

Yes the menubar is still there, but the app without it's content is not much of a use.

If you really understand why it's important not to have applications close down when no documents are open, you should realize at least one pretty important thing you can do with a app with only a menu bar: you can open/create new documents. I'd call that pretty useful.

Configuring the program itself is quite important, too, and it isn't tied in any way to the windows that are open.

 

[NJuul]

This thread should have ended after the 4th poster...
Obviously someone doesn't use their computer for real work.

Imagine this (real-life) scenario:
You are working on a manuscript in Word
You use Endnote to organize your references
You use Safari to retrieve new references and to search for stuff
You use Preview to read .pdf's
You have your data in different Exel files, and occasionally need to open one or another to make calculations or graphs
You make illustrations for your manuscript in Illustrator
You have a number of high-resolution images that you access and make modifications to in Photoshop.

At any one time you have a Word window open, as you are working on a manuscript. And you probably also have endnote and safari windows open. But as you use a high number of different pdf, xls, illustrator and photoshop files, you probably don't have any open windows in these apps open when you are not specifically using the app. Then imagine how stupid and what a waste of time it would be if the app quit when you closed the last window, and you had to re-open the app every time you needed it (which would be often).