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 Mac OS 9 functionality is still missing?
- Thread starter wrldwzrd89
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How would you implement this? A so-called click-and-hold (one and a half clicks, as you say) menu?Flickta said:
Finder
The way Icons in the Finder greyed out when they were open in another window.
The way it felt like I had loads of space at 1024x768 (I know that the menu and title bars are the same size but the font makes a real difference to the percieved space).
It annoys me that my CRT iMac (in OS9) is way more responsive than my 12" PB (which won't run OS9).
Conversely: there's always iTunes, Expose and Apache.
The way Icons in the Finder greyed out when they were open in another window.
The way it felt like I had loads of space at 1024x768 (I know that the menu and title bars are the same size but the font makes a real difference to the percieved space).
It annoys me that my CRT iMac (in OS9) is way more responsive than my 12" PB (which won't run OS9).
Conversely: there's always iTunes, Expose and Apache.
I did like the grayed out effect to indicate that something is open. However, it's no longer needed in Mac OS X because, unlike Mac OS 9, Mac OS X allows multiple copies of an application/folder to be open at once. The purpose of this effect was to show that something was already open, so opening it again was pointless.X-Baz said:
I agree with you that Mac OS X should be more responsive than Classic. Tiger will make responsiveness even better than Panther (and Panther, compared to Mac OS 9, isn't all that bad).
for everything gained something is lost
I think that's part of the point ... there was a certainty to something being open - once opened it was in one place and one place only, whereas now something can "be" in many places at once.
I know the "new" way is more flexible and superior in some cases but there was a simplicity and intuitiveness about the old way that has been lost - it's something that's quite hard to explain (but see John Siracusa's and John Gruber's articles about the Spatial Finder on arstechnica and daringfireball respectively ...)
wrldwzrd89 said:
I think that's part of the point ... there was a certainty to something being open - once opened it was in one place and one place only, whereas now something can "be" in many places at once.
I know the "new" way is more flexible and superior in some cases but there was a simplicity and intuitiveness about the old way that has been lost - it's something that's quite hard to explain (but see John Siracusa's and John Gruber's articles about the Spatial Finder on arstechnica and daringfireball respectively ...)
I understand what you mean. There is a way to have the best of both options, though: give the Finder a new mode that prevents having multiple copies of the same window open at once. The GUI of Mac OS X already takes care of the multiple copies of applications issue - all that would need to be changed is altering the application icon when it is running like Mac OS 9 did. I think these changes would make both of us happy.X-Baz said:
I'm not a switcher. I was just curious and failed to realize that since I haven't used the Mac OS 9 Finder in a LONG time. I still use the Classic environment, though, because I need it for some of the fun stuff I do.Flickta said:The same way it was implemented in OS 9. Are you a switcher? Oh, dear...
wrldwzrd89 said:
Ok. It worked that way: you clicked a folder once and then clicked and held the mouse button. And the folder opened. But when you released the mouse button, the folder closed. Sort of an auto-close. This functionality may not be THAT useful, but it is surely MISSING in Mac OS X. Which shouldn't be.
Flickta said:
Be sure to submit feedback in these two places if you find a feature missing:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/
http://bugreporter.apple.com/ (free Apple ID necessary for registration)