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

What's still missing in Mac OS X?

The one thing I wish would happen is an option to get rid of unified menus. How hard would it be to add the top bar menu to each app. When I am working on my 30 inch monitor, it really sucks to go to the top of the app I am active in (and especially when I sometimes click out of the focus window). When I have two apps side by side, I want the options to be above each app and not at top of screen. Whenever I move someone from Windows to Mac, this is the first thing they complain about (usually only thing too).
 
HyperX13 said:
The one thing I wish would happen is an option to get rid of unified menus.
Click to expand...

That would be extremely dislocating for people (like me) who have been using Macs for up to 25 years.

Whenever I move someone from Windows to Mac, this is the first thing they complain about (usually only thing too).
Click to expand...

The last thing I'd want is something that makes OS X look more like Windows.
 
In my opinion there are some features with which the Mac OSX experience would be even better (perhaps there are options to accomplish them that I am unaware of).

Is there any reason why OSX does not fully support NTFS (read/write)? I guess they are not legal because even some 'purist' Linux distributions include that already. NTFS support would be a nice addition for OSX because lets face it guys since PCs are still majority most HDs are NTFS and data needs to be exchanged.

I'd also like to see OSX adding support for other file systems like ext3 because it might help exchange files with Linux boxes and, since it is a 'free' file system, what's the matter?

My PowerMac has a really big monitor but it frustrates me that Finder can not be maximized to fill it! (it just uses less than a half of the screen). I'd like Finder to maximize fully. (When one maximizes something is because we want to visualize the most stuff by using the largest available space).

I'd like to be able to cut and paste stuff, not just copy & paste.

Finally I'd like the Terminal to be more comprehensive. For instance you have to go though a series of menus in order to get another one (why not let tbe Terminal to pop a new instance each time the icon is clicked?). Furthermore if you open a text file in the Terminal and scroll up the mouse, the display gets corrupted. That needs to get fixed.

Other than that I am really pleased with OSX.

Thanks,
Joe.
 
HyperX13 said:
The one thing I wish would happen is an option to get rid of unified menus. How hard would it be to add the top bar menu to each app. When I am working on my 30 inch monitor, it really sucks to go to the top of the app I am active in (and especially when I sometimes click out of the focus window). When I have two apps side by side, I want the options to be above each app and not at top of screen. Whenever I move someone from Windows to Mac, this is the first thing they complain about (usually only thing too).
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous request. The only app you need a menu bar in is the one you're using. To add a menu bar to each window would be to waste 20px x each window's width of screen real estate. I bet those people also complain that they can't maximize windows, which is to waste ALL remaining screen real estate.
 
Announcement: With rare exception, "the green button" toggles the window's size between the size of it's content, and the size you had it. If a website is 980px wide as most are, then clicking the green button on that window will make it 980px wide. There is no reason for safari windows to EVER be larger than 980px wide, so if you have a 20" display, then maximizing all your windows like most PC users do is wasteful and stupid. It's a bad habit carried over from the days of 800x600 displays.
 
chaos86 said:
Announcement: With rare exception, "the green button" toggles the window's size between the size of it's content, and the size you had it. If a website is 980px wide as most are, then clicking the green button on that window will make it 980px wide. There is no reason for safari windows to EVER be larger than 980px wide, so if you have a 20" display, then maximizing all your windows like most PC users do is wasteful and stupid. It's a bad habit carried over from the days of 800x600 displays.
Click to expand...
How is this wasteful, or stupid?

This is the EXACT reason why I bought SizeUp. If I'm working on an app or at a website that requires 100% of my attention, all I have to do is maximize the window (or with SizeUp, control+option+Command+M). My Dock auto-hides, and now I have no background distractions. I value my time, and multi-tasking is a waste of my time.

Just because people like to do things a certain way, doesn't mean it's wasteful or stupid.

PS, I highly recommend SizeUp to anyone who wants easier window management... It quickly resizes windows for you, so if you're on a 13" display sometimes, like me, you can make one window take up exactly 50% of the left-side of your screen, and another take up 50% of the right-side. Very handy for taking notes while watching a lecture, comparing documents, etc.
 
chaos86 said:
Announcement: With rare exception, "the green button" toggles the window's size between the size of it's content, and the size you had it. If a website is 980px wide as most are, then clicking the green button on that window will make it 980px wide. There is no reason for safari windows to EVER be larger than 980px wide, so if you have a 20" display, then maximizing all your windows like most PC users do is wasteful and stupid. It's a bad habit carried over from the days of 800x600 displays.
Click to expand...

This may apply to your preferences but not to many. The green button is really retarded when it comes to behavior. As a web developer I know that it all depends on the content and code used to display it. That varies greatly between websites. Look at the code for this page and you will see a mixture of code that says to display content and text as a certain pixel size and or a percent of window size. While 980px may work for your needs it doesn't for me and to say its wasteful and stupid is just a blanket statement that doesn't apply to many. There are still many sites that use java script to force the window size to what the coder wanted.

I use 1280 for my general surfing. on my 23" horz positioned monitor set at 1920x1200 res. If I have the page centered on my screen then that leaves me 320px on each side to view things behind the browser window. More than enough for multi tasking. If I view this page at 980px then "SeenJeen" post takes up 460px vertically. If I view it at 1850px it only consumes 350px. This allows me to scan posts faster and easier to read. Much easier to tell sentence or paragraph ends. Seeing as vert real estate is more limited than horz on a horz positioned monitor its a big factor to me.

Try dragging the size of this page then hitting the green button to see how it responds. Nothing at all or rarely will it. It wont snap back to the previous size. Then try opening a new window and hitting the green button to see how it behaves, nothing like it really should.

I get tired of dragging the window size to get it back to where I want and it should really have a command as many programs I use that save the window size and or position as default. Safari by default uses the last closed window as default position and size and even that can change depending on the code used to display the site.

PS. It also depends on the state of the green button when you drag a windows size.
 
Eric S. said:
That would be extremely dislocating for people (like me) who have been using Macs for up to 25 years.



The last thing I'd want is something that makes OS X look more like Windows.
Click to expand...

This is why I am asking for an option to go either way. Especially for people coming from Windows world, and there are a lot.
 
HyperX13 said:
The one thing I wish would happen is an option to get rid of unified menus. How hard would it be to add the top bar menu to each app.
Click to expand...
How hard? It would be impossible to do without changing the windowing philosophy. You are not asking for a small change and certainly not one that could be offered as an option.

This is never going to happen.

S-
 
Nice thread: I would like to post some things OS X could import from Windows.

1) Close windows from expose. I got a popup from safari, dont even realize it
until I hit expose, and then I have to click it and close it.
2) Can we toggle application open/minimize by clicking applications on dock ?
like in windows. It opens and click again, nothing happens... what a waste
a click...haha

3) Since we now have exose in dock, and minimizing in dock can we have an
to hover on application on dock for exose instead of clicking and holding
for ever.

4 ) Cleanup folders is still a mess, cannot seem to clear the clutter, refresh ( on windows ) is much better.

5) Merge folders
6) Since we now can minimize windows to windows, can we have an option, that when we select close, it actually closes application instead of minimizing. eg iPhoto.

7) How can I never figure out the + (maximize) button. It just seems to maximize to what ever size it wants.

9) Resize windows from all corners 😀

10) address bar in FInder, so we could type the address/location of file to browse.
 
rwilliams said:
Honestly, a few more games would be nice. Solitaire, Hearts, Spades...any of those would be nice.
Click to expand...

I second that! we definitely need A good Solitaire game. That's one reason why I still go back to use my Windows Vista computer. I'm still waiting for Resolution Independence. Fonts are a tad too tiny my eyes. An option for scaling the OS similar to Windows would be awesome. Folder Previews that display the contents of that folder is way overdue.

Desktop Widgets that remain on the desktop. I like having Dashboard display my widgets but I would prefer having a few remain on my desktop. An option that would allow widgets to remain on the desktop would be great.

Rename multiple files at once is a much needed feature. Right now it's way too time consuming renaming one file at time especially if you have a lot to rename.

A Windows Snap like feature for OS X would be great. Alot of times I need to work with 2 windows side by side. I find it a really useful windows feature.

Automatically add photos to Iphoto that are in your folders. Just select which folders you want Iphoto to copy or display and as soon as you add a photo to that folder, Iphoto will automatically add it. You have the option of keeping the original photos in your folder or have a copy in Iphoto.

That's where Windows has an advantage over OS X IMO. Right now it's time consuming having to store my pictures in my folders and then having to manually add the same photos to iphoto. It would be much easier if it was done automatically.
 
HyperX13 said:
This is why I am asking for an option to go either way. Especially for people coming from Windows world, and there are a lot.
Click to expand...

No company is going design their product (nor should they) to mimic the competition's product to help ease the transition for switchers. Especially when the competition's customers are switching from the old platform to the newer one.

I know these weren't your exact words per say but don't kid yourself, the amount of existing Mac customers greatly outweigh the amount of switchers since Apple went to Intel. Even if the switchers outweighed the existing customers Apple shouldn't implement existing Windows features into OS X just to please switchers. And this "switcher" thing has frankly gotten old. You're choosing a new platform, just like you choose a new car.
 
HLdan said:
No company is going design their product (nor should they) to mimic the competition's product to help ease the transition for switchers. Especially when the competition's customers are switching from the old platform to the newer one.

I know these weren't your exact words per say but don't kid yourself, the amount of existing Mac customers greatly outweigh the amount of switchers since Apple went to Intel. Even if the switchers outweighed the existing customers Apple shouldn't implement existing Windows features into OS X just to please switchers. And this "switcher" thing has frankly gotten old. You're choosing a new platform, just like you choose a new car.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. I was just wishing.
 
dumb said:
6) Since we now can minimize windows to windows, can we have an option, that when we select close, it actually closes application instead of minimizing. eg iPhoto.
Click to expand...

This is Windows' most infuriating behavior. It's hard to believe anyone doing real work appreciates it. I'm opening, editing, closing and moving files all day in Word. Close the last window and Word quits. Why? Why would Windows think I'm through with word processing for the day? And if it makes so much sense, why doesn't Windows Excel act the same way?

Please don't bring this anywhere near OS X.

mt
 
Another pet peeve I have with my macs is how slow it copies files over the network compared to windows. I have a NAS device. I put all my home movies on this device. Windows machine is much faster copying to it than my faster processor Mac. Also - when I browse a network share, it is a LOT slower, especially if there are a lot of files. I wish Apple would look into that.
 
mysterytramp said:
This is Windows' most infuriating behavior. It's hard to believe anyone doing real work appreciates it. I'm opening, editing, closing and moving files all day in Word. Close the last window and Word quits. Why? Why would Windows think I'm through with word processing for the day? And if it makes so much sense, why doesn't Windows Excel act the same way?

Please don't bring this anywhere near OS X.

mt
Click to expand...

I know thats one of the hallmark features of mac os x. and makes sense with applications like photoshop, where you have lots of windows open.

I was so used to using system with low resources, i could not afford to have applications running on the background, much rather have it closed on clicking close on windows
 
dumb said:
I was so used to using system with low resources, i could not afford to have applications running on the background, much rather have it closed on clicking close on windows
Click to expand...

I can't parse this. It sounds like you want the app to quit when all its windows are closed. What's wrong with hitting cmd-Q?
 
HLdan said:
No company is going design their product (nor should they) to mimic the competition's product to help ease the transition for switchers. Especially when the competition's customers are switching from the old platform to the newer one.

I know these weren't your exact words per say but don't kid yourself, the amount of existing Mac customers greatly outweigh the amount of switchers since Apple went to Intel. Even if the switchers outweighed the existing customers Apple shouldn't implement existing Windows features into OS X just to please switchers. And this "switcher" thing has frankly gotten old. You're choosing a new platform, just like you choose a new car.
Click to expand...

Also why should Apple change something that has been standard before Windows even existed.
 
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but Vista style file copying should be added to the Mac OS X.

In Vista, when copying over any file with the same file name as one that already exists, a dialog box pops up asking if you want to replace or rename the copy so you can have them both.

While not a common occurrence, it's one of those little features that is greatly appreciated when the situation does happen.

Furthermore, when replacing data that already exists, the amount remaining to be transferred does not change. For example, if you copy over 20GB of files, and 5GB of that data already exists (and you choose to keep the existing data, and not replace the ones in the destination), the transfer window will still say it is transferring 20GB of data. Because of that, if only 18GB of space is available on the destination, even though the amount being transferred is only 15GB (because you chose to not replace the existing 5GB), you will get an error saying there is not enough free space.

This is bothersome when you have several hundred files, and it's easier to select all of them to transfer while wanting to not replace the existing ones in the destination rather than having to go through and transfer them individually or in batches that total less than the space available on the destination.

I don't know if that's a Windows feature, but it sure would be nice for the Mac OS to be smart enough to figure that out.

Edit: Like I said, it's definitely not a common occurrence, but I have personally come across these scenarios dozens of times and it always ends up being a lot more difficult than I feel it should be.
 
chaos86 said:
This is a ridiculous request. The only app you need a menu bar in is the one you're using. To add a menu bar to each window would be to waste 20px x each window's width of screen real estate. I bet those people also complain that they can't maximize windows, which is to waste ALL remaining screen real estate.
Click to expand...

The two situations I think it is better to have window specific menus is when you have a ridiculously huge monitor (someone who uses their TV as a display), or especially a multi-display setup since the Mac OS can only have the menu bar show on one of the displays.

There are some old third party apps that will display a menu wherever the mouse is with a key combination, but then again that is relying on a third party developer for something that is not a part of the Mac OS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back