Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
My emphasis
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.

About the emphasis:
It does not stem from a "Holier than thou attitude". It stems from working in print as a journalist (and broadcast with both audio and video), working with press photographers, have them learn me the ropes. It comes from cases were the integrity of the photographer has been questioned simply because people could read (in the metadata) that the photo in question had been through PS. It comes from having the notion of what you're doing is "documenting". I don't use audio recordings of somewhere else or from a catalogue to make belief something was there when it wasn't. If it was there I recorded it at the spot. It's a matter of attitude and niche. You're in one niche, I'm in another.
It comes from stories where well-reknowned press photograpers made montages with PS to "get" the picture. Of course it's possible to do many things even the analogue way, but it's harder than using photoshop. Some media outlets don't even let you do anything else but cropping and make the picture lighter or darker. That's it. No adding of curves, no layers, no nothing. Of course there is a difference between that and what you do from the looks of it:

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.
Good work.

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?
As mentioned, it depends what area you work in.

It's the final image that matters. We're making art here.
Hence the difference.

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?
Because I don't make "art", I do photography (when I have to – I'm an audio guy first and foremost) and the good photographers I look up to are all press photographers, not "art" photographers/producers.
 
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.

I'd rather use a hammer and a nail to put up a picture.
 
I also love the power of the command line environment compared to a DOS prompt in Windows. The commands available at a DOS prompt are a sad subset of what you get with UNIX. A clear signal that Dave Cutler, the leader of the MS project to build NT 4.0, was making a thinly veiled copy of UNIX. And an incomplete copy at that.

The problem was they never put a powerful enough scripting language (I think that's finally resolved with PowerShell?). Back in the OS/2 and early NT days they had REXX which can do things the Unix command line couldn't.
 
The problem was they never put a powerful enough scripting language (I think that's finally resolved with PowerShell?). Back in the OS/2 and early NT days they had REXX which can do things the Unix command line couldn't.
I never heard of REXX, but yes, PowerShell is really nice on Windows. One thing I'd like to see on Mac OS X is Apple changing the Terminal defaults to more colorful ones, like the PowerShell defaults.
 
Likes: pretty much everything

Dislikes:
  • the fact you can't modify files/folders in in-app file open/save panels
  • the enter/return key is the universal method of selecting an option/launching, yet it renames files on OS X (cmd + O launching it)
  • some bundled apps grab focus when you don't want it: iTunes becomes forfront and gets focus when you insert a device - I'd rather an option to disable it when I'm working: I love how OS X handles app focus compared to my awful Windows experiences

A kind message to Adobe: recode your fudging plugin for Flash on OS X - it's the only app I know which is dog-slow on OS X compared to Windows. It's like woah awful. Woah. Yup -1% chance somebody at Adobe reads this, let alone somebody who can take action about it :D
 
(still with Tiger, BTW)

Cons:

Dock ... I'm not much of a fan of the Dock. I don't like how it's a layer over the Desktop. Too easy for the bottom of a window or a file downloaded to the desktop to get under it. I much preferred having a set of apps under the Apple menu in OS 9.

Spotlight ... I hate how it starts searching after you type just three letters. I don't like how the "Show All" window shows very little info about the files. I don't like how you can't alt-tab to the window. Sherlock was better (and Sherlock is better than anything Windows has offered)

Menu clock ... I hate how when you select it, it delays two seconds before showing the date.

Finder ... You should be able to have two or more directories in the same window. And I don't like how the Trash window forgets that you set the View Options of the window to Calculate all sizes. I wish OS X had the button in Windows that takes you one directory up.

Pros ...

These are two numerous to mention.

mt
 
(still with Tiger, BTW)

Cons:

Dock ... I'm not much of a fan of the Dock. I don't like how it's a layer over the Desktop. Too easy for the bottom of a window or a file downloaded to the desktop to get under it. I much preferred having a set of apps under the Apple menu in OS 9.

Spotlight ... I hate how it starts searching after you type just three letters. I don't like how the "Show All" window shows very little info about the files. I don't like how you can't alt-tab to the window. Sherlock was better (and Sherlock is better than anything Windows has offered)

Menu clock ... I hate how when you select it, it delays two seconds before showing the date.

Finder ... You should be able to have two or more directories in the same window. And I don't like how the Trash window forgets that you set the View Options of the window to Calculate all sizes. I wish OS X had the button in Windows that takes you one directory up.

Pros ...

These are two numerous to mention.

mt

I guess ti is a glitch of things going underneath the dock, but I have never had it happen to me, but I am definitely not saying it doesn't happen, because I have seen it happen.

For Spotlight, you can use the arrow keys and select the "Top Hit", that is what I do. As for Alt-Tab, that is not even a Mac OS command, unless you are talking about command + Tab.

The menu clock showing the date, just drop an iCal icon in your dock, and it should always show the current date if you have Leopard.
 
I guess ti is a glitch of things going underneath the dock, but I have never had it happen to me, but I am definitely not saying it doesn't happen, because I have seen it happen.

For Spotlight, you can use the arrow keys and select the "Top Hit", that is what I do. As for Alt-Tab, that is not even a Mac OS command, unless you are talking about command + Tab.

The menu clock showing the date, just drop an iCal icon in your dock, and it should always show the current date if you have Leopard.

Oops ... I spend too much time with my Dell laptop at work ... alt-tab should be command-tab.

mt
 
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?

The focus follows mouse I'm used to doesn't bring the window to the front. Clicking on the window does that. Hovering over the window will bring it into focus, without bringing it to the front. It's very handy when you want to, for example, type in one window that is behind another without bringing it to the front. However, with multi-monitor setups these days, I don't use it anymore.

Example: You have a single monitor and are viewing a web page telling you how to do something on the command line. You want to view the web page and type on the command prompt at the same time. The problem is that once you click on terminal, it covers up your web page. Instead of playing around with resizing the windows, you can just move your mouse over to the terminal app, and can type there without the window covering up your web page. These days, however, I'd just move the terminal over to the second monitor.

Others like it for other reasons, but my example is the whole reason I used to use it so much. Lots of unix guys like it as some unix/x-windows systems are setup that way by default.
 
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??

I completely agree with you - multiple monitors is fantastic - I couldn't work without them. That's why I have FOUR of them.

What I am saying is that the way OSX _handles_ multiple monitors is a total mess. Window creation, dialog box creation, default locations, sizing, etc.

And by the way, some of the behavior actually contradicts other behavior, so this is not necessarily a question of "the mac way". Two opposite behaviors cannot both be the mac way, simultaneously. At least one is broken.
 
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.


I'm not sure what is worse ...

People who think Windows is the only UI in the world

Or:

People who think Windows and Mac are the only two UIs in the world.

As for focus follows mouse, the issue has been settled:

If you don't require FFM, then lucky you! That means you aren't doing serious coding and/or admin work. Again, lucky you! For those of us cursed with that kind of work, it's a requirement.
 
My emphasis


About the emphasis:
It does not stem from a "Holier than thou attitude". It stems from working in print as a journalist (and broadcast with both audio and video), working with press photographers, have them learn me the ropes. It comes from cases were the integrity of the photographer has been questioned simply because people could read (in the metadata) that the photo in question had been through PS. It comes from having the notion of what you're doing is "documenting". I don't use audio recordings of somewhere else or from a catalogue to make belief something was there when it wasn't. If it was there I recorded it at the spot. It's a matter of attitude and niche. You're in one niche, I'm in another.
It comes from stories where well-reknowned press photograpers made montages with PS to "get" the picture. Of course it's possible to do many things even the analogue way, but it's harder than using photoshop. Some media outlets don't even let you do anything else but cropping and make the picture lighter or darker. That's it. No adding of curves, no layers, no nothing. Of course there is a difference between that and what you do from the looks of it:


Good work.


As mentioned, it depends what area you work in.


Hence the difference.


Because I don't make "art", I do photography (when I have to – I'm an audio guy first and foremost) and the good photographers I look up to are all press photographers, not "art" photographers/producers.

Fair enough. We're talking completely different professions. I apologize for the holier than thou remark. There is an ongoing debate amongst photographers that deals with how much photoshop work is too much. Most people draw the line at adding things to photos that aren't there, but some people believe that everything must be done in camera for some reason—those are the holier than thou people.

I am of the opinion that it is best to learn the basics, to get what you want without having to do too much processing (though digital always seems to require some). Once you've done that, you're free to do as you wish. For instance, I shoot color exclusively on my digitals, but I may convert it to B&W in post. If I want the color later I still have it, and I don't need anything other than a polarizer or UV filter for my lenses—and, most importantly, I don't have to change anything in the field.

I also don't montage to "get" the picture. I don't like to force it. If it isn't there I don't usually add it to my photographs. I might make a montage, but I don't generally call it a photograph at that point. I think that working with the colors and tones in an image is fair game. The Ireland picture I just messed with because I wanted to see how interesting that sky would become and it felt more brooding than the original image showed. I wish I had a polarizer with me then, but I didn't have time to get one for those lenses.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment. Many of those images are only levels adjustments and possibly USM. I rarely crop. I can definitely see the uses of Aperture for press photographers—and other photographers too. I just know Photoshop like the back of my hand, and I don't normally get crazy with it on my Photos.

Dislikes:
  • the fact you can't modify files/folders in in-app file open/save panels
  • some bundled apps grab focus when you don't want it: iTunes becomes forfront and gets focus when you insert a device - I'd rather an option to disable it when I'm working: I love how OS X handles app focus compared to my awful Windows experiences

Agreed on the first one. You can set stuff not to automatically open in iTunes and iPhoto. The iPhoto one is hidden in Image Capture in the Applications folder.

(still with Tiger, BTW)

Cons:

Dock ... I'm not much of a fan of the Dock. I don't like how it's a layer over the Desktop. Too easy for the bottom of a window or a file downloaded to the desktop to get under it. I much preferred having a set of apps under the Apple menu in OS 9.

Menu clock ... I hate how when you select it, it delays two seconds before showing the date.

mt

I loved the apps menu in OS9. You can fake it with stacks in Leopard, but it's not the same.

The menu clock opens instantly in Leopard.

I'm not sure what is worse ...

People who think Windows is the only UI in the world

Or:

People who think Windows and Mac are the only two UIs in the world.

As for focus follows mouse, the issue has been settled:

If you don't require FFM, then lucky you! That means you aren't doing serious coding and/or admin work. Again, lucky you! For those of us cursed with that kind of work, it's a requirement.

I don't think Mac OS and Windows are the only UIs in the world, but thanks for the insult and sarcasm. I assumed you came from Windows, and you assumed I've never touched a computer than didn't run Windows or Mac OS—I guess we're even? I've run many different systems and my best friend runs a different Linux distro what seems like every week and I use his computer when I'm over there.

As for coding, most of my code work is PHP based (I use BBEdit) but I do use Xcode occasionally. I've got a large screen and have no problem having two full pages open simultaneously on one monitor. I have a window open with Safari. If I need to look up a function, I open it. I use tabs a lot, and I use the drawer and multiple windows in BBEdit as well. I don't have a problem with clicking and Cmd+tabbing back. I suppose it would be nice in certain situations, but I didn't much like it in other OSes. I liked to move my mouse out of the way on other systems, and sometimes that led to accidentally typing in another window.

That reminds me, I love how Mac OS knows the right times to hide my cursor.

Multiple monitors is definitely nice, but even when coding on systems with more than one monitor, I still find myself doing most of the work on one window. I could really fit 3 BBEdit windows across on my iMac if I had to.

I see your need, but as I said before, it sounds like you need another OS if you want that feature. I apologize for saying it should be Windows. As far as I remember, it does FFM, and most people on here come from that world, so I picked Windows. Also, as I never use the feature, I didn't notice it in other OSes I've used so I can't really claim "go use Mandrake instead."
 
Pros:
+ Many Unix features (python, bash...)
+ The multitask
+ No anti virus needed
+ Many open project available
+ Stable OS
+ Less memory leak (I use a few windows machines at jobs and it drive me crazy)
+ Spotlight meta information search
+ Exposer
+ Spaces

Cons:
- Quicktime with AVI, WMV performance
- Finder cannot merge folder (copy by replacing only necessary items)
- A decent partitions resize tools (command line, shouldn't be necessary)
- No screen shutdown button on iMac
- Not enough hardware option (video card!)
- No ext3 FS support
- No MSN support into iChat (AIM is totaly useless outside of the US)
- Many US features only
- Flash performance are horrible (Adobe, but still so comon, a better support and help should be done here)
- A good Media burner (Toast like built in)
- Compression with rar support
- A decent text editor (Subethaedit, TextMate style), use a strip down xCode editor if needed
- A few system weirdo file location for open source software (Python for example)
 
Cons:
- No screen shutdown button on iMac
- A few system weirdo file location for open source software (Python for example)

I definitely agree with the weird locations for certain programs—and most of your other cons—and also how they seem to change over Mac OS updates.

On any Mac, the shortcut for sleeping only the screen is Shift+Control+Eject. If you have an iMac with a number-padless keyboard though, I don't know what you could do. I think I learned this one in this thread, or the previous one. I love it. It's especially great for when your screen wouldn't sleep otherwise (like with certain animation programs).
 
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.

The question at hand is what do you like or dislike about Mac OS X. I don't like the Menu Bar at the top of the screen and would prefer that the task specific elements be merged with the close, minimize, and zoom buttons at the top of each window.

The remainder of the Menu Bar could be hidden and only appear when you moved your cursor to the top edge of the screen or it could be merged with the Dock.

It was a good approach when monitors were small and prior to Mac OS supporting a multi-tasking environment. It's past its "best by ..." date when using a large monitor such as a 30" Apple Cinema Display.

I presume your windows comment was a reference to Microsoft Windows. I avoid it whenever possible.
 
3412423475_d84debd41f_o.png

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.

Why do you have this preconceived notion that I might be a Microsoft Windows user? Microsoft Windows doesn't even support the concept of separate work spaces.

I understand how to use System Preferences to assign an application to a specific Space. I've done that and do use it. This works great as long as you define work in the context of a single application.

However, that's not what Apple marketed. They marketed Spaces as a way to organize projects and tasks that you were working on. I might have a project where I'm preparing the "as is" documentation for a network. I would want NeoOffice and Terminal running in this Space. I might have another Space where I'm working on a presentation for management regarding how we could use a new technology. In this space, I would need NeoOffice and Firefox.

In the first Space, let's assume that I'm creating a complex document with each chapter being a separate file covering the details of a single site in the network. When I complete the documentation for a site, I will close the file and want to open a new file for the next site in the same Space.

I do not want to go to the Space where I was working on a presentation for management. Under Mac OS X, this is what happens.

The basic problem is that there is no way to run a separate instance of an application in each Space with one or more open windows.

Perhaps this is just a problem for those of us from an X Windows environment who bought an Apple system because we liked the hardware components used in the system and liked that under Mac OS X veneer resided a BSD Unix system.
 
A few of the minor things that bug me in OS X have been mentioned. Multiple monitors are great, but the handling is inconsistent in popping dialog boxes, opening new document windows, etc.

A minor thing that bugs me is compressing my virtual machine images. These are usually 15-20 gb. Seems that they take forever to compress. I have a new 09 Mac Pro, you would think it would hum along fairly quickly. And the progress bar doesn't work once the size of the progress hits 2 gb. I need to find a good compressor utility. Ay recommendations are welcomed! Thanks in advance!
 
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.

I'm pretty sure some of Apple's own work violates its own UI guidelines.

Take the dock, for example. In the left divider, we have application shortcuts mixed with active applictions (active applications indicated by a triangle underneath). On the right, we have the trash, special shortcuts (the link to apple.com/osx), stacks, and minimized windows. Egad, what a train wreck of UI design!
 
The question at hand is what do you like or dislike about Mac OS X. I don't like the Menu Bar at the top of the screen and would prefer that the task specific elements be merged with the close, minimize, and zoom buttons at the top of each window.

The remainder of the Menu Bar could be hidden and only appear when you moved your cursor to the top edge of the screen or it could be merged with the Dock.

It was a good approach when monitors were small and prior to Mac OS supporting a multi-tasking environment. It's past its "best by ..." date when using a large monitor such as a 30" Apple Cinema Display.
.

It's even worse when you use multiple monitors. Really irritating when the menu is always on monitor 1 but your application window is on monitor 2, 3, or 4.

Further, the arguments in favor of the menu fall apart as soon as you start introducing the toolbar buttons that most applications have in the window (including Apple applications such as iTunes -- previous, play/pause, next, volume, view, or Pages -- View, Full Screen, Outline, Sections, Text Box, Shapes, etc.). Those buttons are always shortcuts to items in the menu. So again we have another UI inconsistency -- menu items always grafted to the top of display 1, and buttons that are shortcuts to those menu items in the application window. Either be consistent and move the menu to the application window, or move the toolbar buttons to always be under the system menu. This is an artifact of Apple's older UI that needs to die and this gross inconsistency cannot be rationalized.
 
It's even worse when you use multiple monitors. Really irritating when the menu is always on monitor 1 but your application window is on monitor 2, 3, or 4.

Further, the arguments in favor of the menu fall apart as soon as you start introducing the toolbar buttons that most applications have in the window (including Apple applications such as iTunes -- previous, play/pause, next, volume, view, or Pages -- View, Full Screen, Outline, Sections, Text Box, Shapes, etc.). Those buttons are always shortcuts to items in the menu. So again we have another UI inconsistency -- menu items always grafted to the top of display 1, and buttons that are shortcuts to those menu items in the application window. Either be consistent and move the menu to the application window, or move the toolbar buttons to always be under the system menu. This is an artifact of Apple's older UI that needs to die and this gross inconsistency cannot be rationalized.

I do not want to see the menu bar moved to the application window, I just want a menu bar on each monitor. Moving the menu bar to the app window just reminds you of a certain other OS that shall not be mentioned.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.