Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th May 2012 02:02 UTC
Mac OS X "Dragging and dropping is a great way to get stuff done on your Mac, but DragonDrop makes it even better. DragonDrop lets you set down what you're dragging, leaving you free to find your destination without worrying about keeping the mouse button held down." Great utility (found via Daring Fireball), but shaking with the mouse is a horrible interaction - it's very intensive and error-prone (Aero Shake, anyone?). I'd love for that little drop container to be permanently visible (oh, and a Windows/Linux version would be awesome, of course).
Order by: Score:
Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Wed 9th May 2012 02:58 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

I'm not sure why other people have trouble with Aero Shake on Windows. It works just fine for me.
Of course, trackpads are a different story...

But, yeah, a permanently visible drag/drop container could be handy.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by Kochise on Wed 9th May 2012 09:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Beware not to copy pr0n and leave your session open for everybody to see those pics/urls ;)

BTW, I love those file managers called OS that cannot even offer something as simple as this, sold for 5 $. Because you obviously need a plugin for copy/paste, need a plugin for screenshot, need a replacement for file manager, need a replacement for window manager, need a replacement for browser, need a replacement for text editing, etc...

What have you bought in the first place ? OS X or Win 7 aren't cheap, yet you cannot perform many things with the software, installed as-is...

Kochise

Edited 2012-05-09 09:02 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Ford Prefect on Wed 9th May 2012 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Welcome to GNU/Linux, where all this stuff is included in the OS.

Note: Included does not mean installed by-default. But we all know the difference between installing a package through your OS package manager for free and paying for third-party software on their website.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Kochise on Wed 9th May 2012 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Well, when I meant lego-style OS, when you have to pay (or not) for bricks in order to get a fully usable OS, especially when it already weights several GB just fresh installed, that's what bother me alot. Linux is not a choice per see, especially if you have to master command line to perform what Windows or OS X can do all graphically. The test is simple : put my father or mother front of a computer, ask them to open the web, fetch paint.net, install it and use it to make a simple picture. Synaptic has made a great progress in the area, yet Gimp ain't the best tool for that (especially if you have to sudo to get the packages and dependencies installed successfully)

Strange that Linux can perform all graphically on embedded computers (Android somebody ?) but not really on the desktop (Unity somebody ?) and these "bricks" can leverage the user experience but providing shortcuts or else to the end user, without having to know something about coding a single bash file.

That's where computers and os falls apart : making things simple yet powerful. My mother, fresh newcomer into the fabulous world of computing, eagerly asked me how to send me her best shots of her vacation. Explain her simply how to select her desired photos, copy them into another (sub)folder, batch redim them to 1024x..., split folders to get 10 MB max folders, ZIP each folder, sent each ZIP in an unique mail, etc...

And for these kind of tasks a pay software could exist just to automate a large load of this task list. Because the OPERATING SYSTEM is unable to do so easily :/

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar
by panzi on Wed 9th May 2012 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar"
panzi Member since:
2006-01-22

I don't care. Linux is not meant to be used by "your parents". Its by developers for developers/very advanced users. I and most Linux users never said anyone else should use it. I'm the least unhappy using Linux (Windows and OS X are much to limiting for me).

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Alfman on Wed 9th May 2012 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

panzi,

I agree with all that. I abandoned windows because of all the grief it's given me over the years. I still support it for other users when it breaks on them, but I've converted and I'm better off for it. Not that I'm trying to sell the "linux is for everyone" motto since it's not. There are things I strongly dislike in linux as well, but it offers far more in terms of flexibility for development...to each their own.

Edited 2012-05-09 21:55 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Alfman on Wed 9th May 2012 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Kochise,

Sometimes there are real advantages to using windows, but these are mostly due to the ubiquity of windows in the marketplace rather than anything to do with the OS being intrinsically easier to use. I'd go as far as to say your first paragraph is borderline trolling: for basic use cases like web browsing, email, writing documents, linux is not actually more difficult to use at all. It just suffers from being an unfamiliar niche platform. Hypothetically if the market shares were reversed, windows would have the same problem.

Edited 2012-05-09 21:55 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Kochise on Thu 10th May 2012 04:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

It's notabout trolling, it's about which OS performs better for the average user. If Windows and OS X suceeded in this area, it's because these are more user friendly (copy/paste, gui, etc...) however you still need "bricks" to improve the experience.

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Alfman on Thu 10th May 2012 07:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Kochise,

...and I assert that someone with little to no computer experience would have a roughly equal learning curve doing basic tasks like browsing the web, checking email, basic document editing on any of these operating systems. This was the demographic you brought up in your original post to which I was responding.

The "average" computer user already has multiple years of experience, however that experience tends to be windows-centric. I won't deny it is true that someone with a significant windows background will clearly have alot of stuff to relearn on linux, especially when it comes to doing more advanced things. Just don't overlook my point that the opposite would be true too. Anyway it's not my intention to get into a pointless debate about one being better for everyone.

I just wanted to correct the impression that linux is harder for beginners to use than windows, it is not. The reason I don't recommend linux for everyone has nothing to do with it being difficult, but rather because it can be an alienating experience in a windows dominated world. You need to be more self driven than a typical windows user. Most of us already have to use windows for our jobs. Linux users will need to find alternatives to the software that friends & co-workers use. Most vendors don't support linux at all, so allot of software and games are going to be unavailable. In short: if you are a sheep, then linux is not for you. If you are an adventurer and don't mind making your own path, then linux has a lot to offer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Kochise on Thu 10th May 2012 07:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Drumhellar"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

And my first point was not Linux (vs. the rest of the world) since it was lego-style OS that cannot even provide a coherent user experience without being added with loads of plugin and replacement parts, when you pay a severe amount of money just to get a fancy task manager and file explorer (to make the picture simple)

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar
by zima on Wed 16th May 2012 23:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

That's where computers and os falls apart : making things simple yet powerful. My mother, fresh newcomer into the fabulous world of computing, eagerly asked me how to send me her best shots of her vacation. Explain her simply how to select her desired photos, copy them into another (sub)folder, batch redim them to 1024x..., split folders to get 10 MB max folders, ZIP each folder, sent each ZIP in an unique mail, etc...

And for these kind of tasks a pay software could exist just to automate a large load of this task list. Because the OPERATING SYSTEM is unable to do so easily :/

Your problem in that example is jumping to an entirely wrong approach ...just like a true geek(?) would, you seem to be unable to fathom or recall much more straightforward approaches which are available.

Like holding the picture library in Picasa, and selecting desired pics for its Web Albums (also unlisted or key-in-url private, which you could even easily configure from your end)

Or: Google Talk win32 client, and drag'n'dropping pics into conversation window.

Both free BTW (and not providing all the functionality, but the base on which we can build upon, is the whole point of OS...)

Nearby you also write
it's about which OS performs better for the average user. If Windows and OS X suceeded in this area, it's because these are more user friendly (copy/paste, gui, etc...)

And yet, judging from how people are often lost in them (much more than your example), not that great ...maybe they can also be described as "by devs for devs", largely.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar
by henderson101 on Thu 10th May 2012 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Welcome to GNU/Linux, where all this stuff is included in the OS.


Really?

Note: Included does not mean installed by-default. But we all know the difference between installing a package through your OS package manager for free and paying for third-party software on their website.


So, not included then. Because, this feature could be free if the author had chosen, included for free in the Mac App store and so, by your definition, "part of the OS". Something is not "included in the OS" unless, you know, it is included in the OS. Otherwise, Mono and Java and [random package] is "included in the OS". And is this RPM, or Debian based Linux? And what about distorts that build from source? And does this include all architectures? PowerPC? Arm? Obscure Chinese MIPS clone?

Reply Score: 2

Copy & Paste
by Alfman on Wed 9th May 2012 06:04 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Just curious, but is this significantly different from copy & paste toolbars available for windows already? I assume they also support drag and drop but to be honest I've only ever used them with keyboard shortcuts because that's more efficient.

I use windows so infrequently these days that I can't even picture the name of the utility I used (trial ware), but it supported multiple buffers of graphics, text, etc. It also did screenshots, but the name's just not coming to me right now...oh well.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Copy & Paste
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 9th May 2012 13:37 UTC in reply to "Copy & Paste"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No, no different really.

The demo video I watched on their site shows things like dragging a picture from a webstie directly into an email without downloading it! Which you could already do in OSX Lion natively. Its very easy to do if they are in different windows. But they demo it in different tabs of the same browser. So instead of separating tabs into new windows with a mouse flick, you can flick your mouse so you don't have to. I think the native way of doing things is easier myself.

With the moving of files demo, OSX has spring loaded folders that allow you to dive deep into a hierarchy without letting go of your dragged object. There solution of having a temporary place for the object, doesn't really make sense to me. I mean, you could just search for the target location before dragging the object if you have trouble with maintaining the drag while searching.

So to sum up, I don't think its worth the $5 for me. I don't think its worth this article or the daring fireball one.

Reply Score: 3

Interesting find!
by siraf72 on Wed 9th May 2012 13:02 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

I shall give it a go this evening. Thanks. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Sorry, what?
by roar on Wed 9th May 2012 13:14 UTC
roar
Member since:
2009-12-26

I'm sorry, can somebody explain to me in which way this app is superior to just, you know, actually pressing or clicking copy/paste, or opening the drop destination beforehand (which would save me one cycle of drag&drop, too) ?

Drag&drop between browser tabs works fine without this tool, too (at least in Chrome it does).

If this thing had at least a history of dropped items or let me store multiple things at once in it I could see the point, but frankly, I don't.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sorry, what?
by Neolander on Wed 9th May 2012 13:37 UTC in reply to "Sorry, what?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, it happens that cut and paste is forbidden in the OSX Finder for religious reasons, so people have to resort to either drag and drop or cumbersome copy + paste + delete original in order to move stuff around...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Sorry, what?
by pandronic on Wed 9th May 2012 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Sorry, what?"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Well, it happens that cut and paste is forbidden in the OSX Finder for religious reasons


Yes, because Mac users are special snowflakes and don't need Cut like the peasant Windows users.

It has been explained to me in great detail that it doesn't fit OS X's design philosophy, yet it makes perfect sense to leave it there in the menu disabled to taunt the simpletons.

All hail, ghost Steve!

Reply Score: 5