I follow. Never gave this much thought really, especially since I set Time Machine to back up every three hours instead of hourly (requires a third-party tool).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What do you like and dislike about Mac OS X?
- Thread starter Doctor Q
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I follow. Never gave this much thought really, especially since I set Time Machine to back up every three hours instead of hourly (requires a third-party tool).
how so? they are useless in a personal computer, they require lot of maintenance and time, and they occasionally knock out your computer. Beside there's a problem with late versions and Disk Utility doesn't repair anything.
Easy enough to repair? Tell me how to solve this and I believe you:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1961253&start=0&tstart=0
while i agree that they can be bothersome, and are for the most part useless, they are a result of the underlying systems that Apple has chosen to use. in the 6+ years i've owned and used macs i've never had permissions "knock out" my computer or spent much of any time having to maintain or fix them either.
as of the bug you mention and the one you link to... i agree those are problems that need to be worked out and are an unfortunate side affect, but given that they are not widespread, perhaps there is an outside issue causing them.
Resizable Windows from any corner (and/or side)
Here's a really simple change. As a former Windows user I really miss being able to resize a window from any corner. Positioning windows on OS X is often a two step process; position top-left, drag bottom-right.
Here's a really simple change. As a former Windows user I really miss being able to resize a window from any corner. Positioning windows on OS X is often a two step process; position top-left, drag bottom-right.
Don't worry. When Apple hires me as Director of Correcting The Biggest Finder Design Error, that's the first thing I'm going to have fixed. I've been complaining about this for years and I proposed a solution.
Would that be hiring you as as Director of Correcting The Biggest Finder Design Error?
- Safari will not allow you to keep one window full-screen while using other windows. I have a quad-head setup and if I open web-video or something like that, and make it full screen, it immediately drops full-screen as soon as I do anything in any other of my four screens.
So no watching web video full screen in one physical screen while working in another physical screen.
-----
- command-tab cycling and command-tilde cycling are inconsistent with each other. One of them (tab) goes to "most recently used" and one oft them (tilde) only goes sequentially. One of them is wrong. You can debate amongst yourself which one it is ... the bottom line is, they are closely related features and they work differently.
-----
(Insert 10-millionth demand for point-to-focus here)
-----
GUI navigation and window creation/placement is just a mess with multiple monitors. Barely usable. In fact, I suspect that multiple monitors must not be "the mac way" because it is a total disaster.
Managing new window creation with safari is just a laugh ... all manner of weird bending over backwards and manual resizing and clicking and dragging and mouse mouse mouse mouse is needed just to make it work.
So no watching web video full screen in one physical screen while working in another physical screen.
-----
- command-tab cycling and command-tilde cycling are inconsistent with each other. One of them (tab) goes to "most recently used" and one oft them (tilde) only goes sequentially. One of them is wrong. You can debate amongst yourself which one it is ... the bottom line is, they are closely related features and they work differently.
-----
(Insert 10-millionth demand for point-to-focus here)
-----
GUI navigation and window creation/placement is just a mess with multiple monitors. Barely usable. In fact, I suspect that multiple monitors must not be "the mac way" because it is a total disaster.
Managing new window creation with safari is just a laugh ... all manner of weird bending over backwards and manual resizing and clicking and dragging and mouse mouse mouse mouse is needed just to make it work.
hhmmm im having trouble understanding how you can't find the multiple monitor setup useful. when i am using two monitors instead of the one i find it WAY better then one pathetic one.. i can read a PDF (for example) on one and write notes about it on the other, no chopping and changing every 10 seconds or having to print it out.
one thing that does annoy me is that safari remembers what window it was used in previously, but ahwell haha.
wanna describe your point more??
Your proposed solution is quite interesting. I like that you've thought about how it could work for existing apps. Very clever.
File Sharing with PCs under Leopard
I love everything except for file sharing with PCs under Leopard. It SUCKS! Under tiger, it worked beautifully! Now, it takes for ever for PC's to show up in my network. It would also be nice to grow up and provide NTFS write capability!
Also, with the new multitouch Macbooks, photoshop is quite annoying because of the multitouch rotate thing.
It would be nice if apple provided a shortcut to unclutter all the windows and to organize them / hide them effectively.
Besides that, its all good over here.
I love everything except for file sharing with PCs under Leopard. It SUCKS! Under tiger, it worked beautifully! Now, it takes for ever for PC's to show up in my network. It would also be nice to grow up and provide NTFS write capability!
Also, with the new multitouch Macbooks, photoshop is quite annoying because of the multitouch rotate thing.
It would be nice if apple provided a shortcut to unclutter all the windows and to organize them / hide them effectively.
Besides that, its all good over here.
Like one can do with HFS+ under Windows?
Microsoft has to grow up, not Apple, as MSFT is the license holder of NTFS.
But there is also a free solution available - NTFS-3G and MacFuse.
Look here:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4337
(1) I would like the application-specific portion of the task bar moved into the application window. This would allow the task bar to be hidden like the dock.
(2) I would like a "focus follows mouse" policy. Why do I have to click on a window to enter text or a command.
(3) I would like Spaces to work like a "real" viewport to a virtual desktop.
(4) I would like real support for multiple instances of an application. I don't like the closing of an application in one Space to take me to take an instance of the same application in another Space.
(2) I would like a "focus follows mouse" policy. Why do I have to click on a window to enter text or a command.
(3) I would like Spaces to work like a "real" viewport to a virtual desktop.
(4) I would like real support for multiple instances of an application. I don't like the closing of an application in one Space to take me to take an instance of the same application in another Space.
That's Mac OS' philosophy of simplifying the human interaction with an OS, if you mean the Menu Bar on top of the display with "task bar".
Having the menu tied to the application window would clutter the desktop, and violate the Human Interface Guidelines (http://developer.apple.com/document...al/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGIntro/XHIGIntro.html).
You have Windows for that.
You can assign applications to specific Spaces, just Office 2008 (and maybe others) seems to fudge with it.
If you click the red button on an application window, you just close a window of the application, you don't quit it (in most instances).
Therefore you're still in that application and automatically jump to the other open window(s) of that application.
Man, I sound like an apologetical fanboy, but in many cases it is just ignorance about the OS and the preconception of Mac OS behaving like Windows. Switching an OS is like learning a new language, maybe not as hard, but still challenging.
Search is your friend: http://www.atomicbird.com/mondomouse
But I understand that you might miss that.
Was that feature integrated into Windows (200 and XP)?
I never recognized that.
I know it is a feature in Linux, but I read somewhere that it exists also in Windows.
Btw, what is the advantage of that "focus follows mouse" feature? Can't it be confusing if it automatically brings the window to the front over which I might accidentally hover?
Really? I was playing in Photoshop when those new MBPs came out and I loved that? Granted I only used it for like two minutes. What's annoying about it? Are you trying to zoom in instead? I wouldn't have noticed that because I used the keyboard shortcuts (Cmd + +/-).
You want Windows. These two changes will never happen. The second one is especially bad for UI interaction.
Being able to drag files to open in the dock is one of my favorite things about OS X. It's nice because you can bypass more lengthy default applications to open something in a quicker program. It's also nice because instead of having to go through a menu in something like iPhoto you can just drag the photo to Photoshop.
That brings me to something I want them to change in iPhoto that bugs the hell out of me. If you drag a horizontal RAW file from iPhoto, you get the original RAW. If you drag a vertical RAW file from iPhoto, you get their modified JPEG. It doesn't make JPEGs for horizontal files because it doesn't have to rotate them.
Why can't it just read the EXIF orientation data from the vertical files? I realize that this would mean it would have to read it from all files, but I don't think that it would slow it down that much. It already reads the EXIF and I think it already stores thumbnails, so it really would only have to check orientation when viewing single files. How about it Apple? It would save me time processing my vertical files.
I wonder if it gets it correct in Aperture. Aperture is useless for me though, because I only use those types of programs to store my images in a db, not to process them. Aperture does have some nice processing, but it just doesn't let you do as much as Photoshopat least to the level I understand Photoshop!
To put it shortly, Aperture is, besides being a database, a photographer's tool, a dark chamber if you will, whereas Photoshop is a manipulator's tool, a cheater's tool. PS and Aperture (or Adobe's Lightroom) are entirely different beasts you're comparing a screwdriver to a socket wrench box. If you need sockets, that's fine, but if you need to put up a picture on the wall, you propably want the screwdriver.
This is probably the simple response:
Photography is manipulation, everything about it is about manipulation.
I think you misunderstand how I use Photoshop. I'm not adding zombies to landscapes, though that's a valid use for something used to make art—maybe not a traditional photograph, but for art.
Both programs are photographer's tools depending upon how you use them. I have plenty of experience in physical darkrooms—I even plan on building my own when I frame out the inside of my garage/shed so I'm pretty familiar with what is possible.
I like Photoshop because it's easier to make selections to apply adjustments to—like a simple levels or curves if I'm working in color. It also lets you work on images as if you had a certain filter on the camera. I know all of this is probably possible in Aperture, but I haven't taken the time to learn how to do it because it doesn't seem to allow masking like I like. I also think Photoshop's handling of Camera RAW files is akin to most of what is possible in Lightroom. I've used both, but I've used Photoshop way longer so I go with what I'm familiar with. I also don't like Aperture's workflow. I know it keeps the original intact, but it always feels unsafe to me because I'm not controlling it directly.
Thinking of Photoshop simply as a tool for manipulation—and thus a cheater's tool as you put it for some reason—comes from a holier than thou attitude. They're both tools. You could make crap with both! It all depends upon who is at the helm. Look at Uelsmann's photos. His manipulations would be simple to do in Photoshop, and yet he did it by sandwiching negatives and using multiple enlargers and masks. No one gets it completely right in camera either, not even Ansel Adams—he heavily processed his film to get the latitude from it that he wanted.
I've made this in Photoshop and I've made this in Photoshop. The first one is probably not possible in Aperture. The second one is. If not, it's possible with some grade 3-5 paper, a #5 filter, and some extra time with an unfocused version of the image printed over top. Instead I did it with Photoshop using a handy recipe of a B&W adjustment layer, a Levels adjustment layer, an Exposure adjustment layer, and an Unsharp Mask.
Sometimes I like to play with my color images. Sometimes I don't. What difference does it make that I've cross-processed it in Photoshop or with chemicals and film? It's the final image that matters. We're making art here. It's not a technical exercise. Who cares if I lay a texture over my image to give it a different color? It's how I want it to look and it could be done in a darkroom if I really wanted to, but not in Aperture. So how can one make the argument that Aperture is a photographer's tool and Photoshop is not?