OS X should take some tips from Windows...

[radhak]

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'
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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Earendil]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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? Is it a typical habit on the Mac to leave all your apps running?

 

[Oats]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yeah, but...

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]

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.