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.
Why don't applications actually shutdown when I quit out?
- Thread starter SebZen
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Console quits just fine if you're actually quitting it. Closing just the window doesn't do it. Being a multi-windowed app, you must invoke the "Quit" command from the File menu or use the Command-Q keyboard shortcut.
What other applications are you having problems with?
What other applications are you having problems with?
Because the user is not supposed to "think about it". The user shouldn't really care what is opened and what not. Not closing an app gives you faster access to it if you want to get back to it, hence the OS is more useable.
You must be a recent PC convert?
In windows, when you close the last window in an application, it quits the app.
On a mac, the app will continue to run unless you actually quit it, by selecting quit from the menu bearing that app's name, or use the cmd+q keyboard shortcut.
It's a change you'll have to get used to when you switch to OS X from windows, but once you do, you'll appreciate it. For example, if Safari or Firefox is still running without any windows open, and you click the dock icon, you'll get a new window instantly. Internet Explorer or Firefox for windows can't say the same thing.
I suggest adopting what I call the "Mac power user hand position". That is, right hand on mouse, left thumb on the command key, left index finger around q (quit), n (new), x,c,v (clipboard), w (close window), s (save), a (select all), etc. All those shortcuts are 99% universal, and this will save you lots of menu time, especially quitting, closing, and saving.
In windows, when you close the last window in an application, it quits the app.
On a mac, the app will continue to run unless you actually quit it, by selecting quit from the menu bearing that app's name, or use the cmd+q keyboard shortcut.
It's a change you'll have to get used to when you switch to OS X from windows, but once you do, you'll appreciate it. For example, if Safari or Firefox is still running without any windows open, and you click the dock icon, you'll get a new window instantly. Internet Explorer or Firefox for windows can't say the same thing.
I suggest adopting what I call the "Mac power user hand position". That is, right hand on mouse, left thumb on the command key, left index finger around q (quit), n (new), x,c,v (clipboard), w (close window), s (save), a (select all), etc. All those shortcuts are 99% universal, and this will save you lots of menu time, especially quitting, closing, and saving.
Pretty much, except it doesn't save the state of the app, it just, doesn't quit the app either.
Well, we have minimize too. It's the yellow button or cmd+m, and it looks much cooler. (Hold the shift key while you click the yellow button)
As JNB stated in his response, the way OSX works is this...
If the application only uses one window... closing the window quits the app
If the application uses multiple windows... closing the window only closes the window and leaves the application running
The idea is this... if the app only uses one window and you close it... then you are assumed to be wanting to quit the app. But if you can use multiple windows, it is not assumed you want to close the app by closing windows.
Makes sense to me
Woof, Woof - Dawg
If the application only uses one window... closing the window quits the app
If the application uses multiple windows... closing the window only closes the window and leaves the application running
The idea is this... if the app only uses one window and you close it... then you are assumed to be wanting to quit the app. But if you can use multiple windows, it is not assumed you want to close the app by closing windows.
Makes sense to me
Woof, Woof - Dawg
Why not just open all your programs then....just incase you need it. Faster access and all.
I'm sorry but I've never understood the purpose of keeping an application open if all its windows are closed. Application just sitting there, consuming RAM for nothing...countless times I have seen users that have forgotten that they had something open. Sometimes they have 2-3 apps open that are just doing nothing. Yes its a mac thing but its always seemed silly to me. I use both OSX and Windows and this feature I've hated always.
I'm sorry but I've never understood the purpose of keeping an application open if all its windows are closed. Application just sitting there, consuming RAM for nothing...countless times I have seen users that have forgotten that they had something open. Sometimes they have 2-3 apps open that are just doing nothing. Yes its a mac thing but its always seemed silly to me. I use both OSX and Windows and this feature I've hated always.
Think about it like this:
In Windows the taskbar and the window are one, and therefore the entire program is the window. In OS X the taskbar and window are separate, therefore, the taskbar represents the program and the window represents just that, a window.
Because the red X is placed on a window and not on the taskbar the act of pressing the red button closes the window, if you want to close the program you have to use the taskbar as that is the program. This is most evident when you open some programs is OS X and a window doesn't open, but the taskbar changes. The taskbar is the program and window is just a window, the buttons therefore only represent actions on that window and not the program.
The upside of this is obviously that you can have programs ready for quick launch in the background, and also you can have a program like iTunes playing music, but you can close the window so it doesn't take up space.
It's strange when you first start using it, but it actually makes an awful lot of sense. You'll just have to get used to cmd+Q, after awhile I'm sure it's quicker then using the mouse anyway
In Windows the taskbar and the window are one, and therefore the entire program is the window. In OS X the taskbar and window are separate, therefore, the taskbar represents the program and the window represents just that, a window.
Because the red X is placed on a window and not on the taskbar the act of pressing the red button closes the window, if you want to close the program you have to use the taskbar as that is the program. This is most evident when you open some programs is OS X and a window doesn't open, but the taskbar changes. The taskbar is the program and window is just a window, the buttons therefore only represent actions on that window and not the program.
The upside of this is obviously that you can have programs ready for quick launch in the background, and also you can have a program like iTunes playing music, but you can close the window so it doesn't take up space.
It's strange when you first start using it, but it actually makes an awful lot of sense. You'll just have to get used to cmd+Q, after awhile I'm sure it's quicker then using the mouse anyway
That is because the OS manages RAM just fine, and in case an application is needed again, it "starts" very quickly. You should give more credit to the professional OS designers - they think about these more seriously than the amount of time it takes us to create a thread here. There is nothing silly about it when you consider various tradeoffs seriously.
I see, interesting.
How about in Safari and I think some other apps as well when I click the + it doesn't really maximize, just extends a couple of inches? I thought that was the maximize button but it doesn't seem to be working too great for me
How about in Safari and I think some other apps as well when I click the + it doesn't really maximize, just extends a couple of inches? I thought that was the maximize button but it doesn't seem to be working too great for me
It's not maximize, it's smart resize. It toggles between user size and default size.
Doesn't even do that for me with Safari. If I manually maximize it by dragging the edge and then clicking the +, it makes it a small square box. If I click + once more it makes it a slightly larger rectangle
And so there is no way to auto maximize windows like in Windows?
Doesn't even do that for me with Safari. If I manually maximize it by dragging the edge and then clicking the +, it makes it a small square box. If I click + once more it makes it a slightly larger rectangle
Sometimes it can be unpredictable. It will try to fit the contents of the window, but it doesn't always work right.
Add this as a bookmark ...
javascript:self.moveTo(0,0);self.resizeTo(screen.a vailWidth,screen.availHeight);
It's because OS X isn't designed for full screen browsing. Why do you need something full screen if it doesn't use the whole thing.
This is one of the things about OS X that drives me crazy as a former Windows user. And part of it is because I was used to using older machines with less RAM and slower processors, so leaving a ton of apps open would slow down the system. Sometimes I forget that I'm using a rather fast machine now with plenty of RAM to accommodate what I'm using.
With that said, it still bugs me to no end.
With that said, it still bugs me to no end.
What I soon realised after getting a Mac is that you can't try and compare it to Windows. It works very differently and it's important to understand the differences. In this case, it's because windows are not always meant to be full-screen in Mac OS.
You have to understand that Mac OS X is built on logic whereas Windows is not. Although Firefox can maximize to full screen by clicking the red X, Safari does not because it's designed to zoom large enough to fit the content on the screen. Notice how the horizontal scroll bar disappears when you click the zoom button in Safari. If the website you are viewing is small such as Yahoo or Cnet.com it doesn't benefit the user at all by maximizing the browser to full screen other than just for the sake of blocking access to your desktop.
And about the application not quitting when closing the red X. As others mentioned, Mac OS X is document based and Windows is application based.
Most of OS X's apps run with the document showing on the screen and the application running in the Dock. Closing the window removes the document from the screen only. This idea allows the user to have multiple windows on the screen.
Try this in Windows, run Excel and try to click "File, new workbook". Windows will create a new workbook BUT it's not capable of displaying more than one spreadsheet at a time. That's because the current window displaying IS the application.
On Excel on Mac it will allow the user to open as many visual workbooks as needed because the application is running in the Dock therefore allowing multiple spreadsheets to appear on the screen. Give it time, you'll get used to the Mac and prefer it's method.
Sorry but I just dont see it that way. Maybe its because I used windows before OSX but to me, its no different than minimizing an application which has a zero K document - as far as memory usage goes. I know of nobody that would work that way or even see the need to work that way. Modern computers are fast enough that opening applications are mere seconds. I just did a test on my box.
What I do see is people at work including the designers forgetting that they have left nearly every application open with no data in it while they just work in photoshop or Quark on some huge layout and then complain that the computer is kinda slow. I remind them that they could close some programs they are not using and they do. Guess what, the computer seems to thrash the drive a little less when there is more memory available.
IMO it makes more sense for an application (even one that handles multiple documents) to close when the last window is closed. Its my opinion but to me that makes more sense.
What I do see is people at work including the designers forgetting that they have left nearly every application open with no data in it while they just work in photoshop or Quark on some huge layout and then complain that the computer is kinda slow. I remind them that they could close some programs they are not using and they do. Guess what, the computer seems to thrash the drive a little less when there is more memory available.
IMO it makes more sense for an application (even one that handles multiple documents) to close when the last window is closed. Its my opinion but to me that makes more sense.