OS X should take some tips from Windows...

[bousozoku]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

my two cents......

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..........

 

[adamjay]

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

 

[iJed]

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]

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]

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]

Your wish is my command

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

 

[LeeTom]

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]

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]

#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]

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]

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]

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]

...
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)