Linked by Adam S on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 14:55 UTC
Mac OS X In my house today, all of the computers are Macs. This is a long way away from three and a half year ago, when I said that Jaguar could not replace my PC. We're chugging along happily running Tiger, just as productive as before, and enjoying every bit of eye candy. But OS X isn't always cherry pie, it's got its own set of faults, and some can be downright annoying. UPDATED
Thread beginning with comment 110739
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Erh...
by Shane on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Erh..."
Shane
Member since:
2005-07-06

There are only certain apps I want to remain open when I close the last window. On Windows, those apps generally have an option to do so. This is how OS X should do it as well. Or even a system-wide preference for people like you would be fine.

Yup, for those apps, hit cmd-w. Here's your option right there. However, you will note that OS X didn't also take away your ability to quit with cmd-q. Instead of arbitrarily defaulting to either hiding or quitting depending on the application (bad for consistency), you have to *choose* what you want to do. I'd rather choose than have the app as me "Are you sure you want to quit?" or "I have been minimised to the notification area. To quit, right click on my icon and select quit".

I prefer consistency. In OS X, I know that clicking on the "x" will *always* close but not quit the application. In windows, clicking the "x" on the contact list of an IM application will generally hide the application, but not quit it. However, clicking the "x" on a "normal" applicaiton will quit it.

However, the inconsistency doesn't really bother me in Windows. One learns after a while which application insists of going to the notification area and which one will actually quit. I am just pointing out that OS X was in fact more consistent in this regard.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Erh...
by TezKAh on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 16:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Erh..."
TezKAh Member since:
2005-07-06

Absolutely agree. mIRC and iTunes, for example, both minimize to the system tray when you hit the minimize button, but exit when you hit the close button. MSN Messenger minimizes to the taskbar when you click the [-] and to the system tray when you hit the [x]. SpeedSwitchXP, a useful applet to have on a laptop since XP's CPU throttling seems to be brain-dead, has a very confusing system, there are close and minimize to tray BUTTONS, and also the close/minimize window buttons. I can never figure this out. Aaaah.



I love the fact that you can hide running applications by cmd+h, sure you can do this on some applications (thanks Opera!) under Windows, but itís not as convenient or consistent as on a Mac.


Then again, thatís the probably the biggest reason to use a Mac, convenience and consistency.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Erh...
by sappyvcv on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 16:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Erh..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, the apps that DO stay open let you know, or at least ASK you first. So it's not inconsistent really.

What if I don't want to use a key shortcut? What if I want to be able to throw my mouse to the top right and click the X (presuming the app is maximized)? Why not make it possible at least?

Consistency is not as important as what the user expects. If an app lets the user know what it's doing, then consistency isn't as relevant.

At least in windows when an application does this, it puts itself in the "systray" instead of being hidden completely until you open a menu.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Erh...
by someone on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 17:28 in reply to "RE[3]: Erh..."
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

Actually, the apps that DO stay open let you know, or at least ASK you first. So it's not inconsistent really.

Actually, this is really a windowsism. It stems from the fact that Windows is still incapable of managing virtual memory effectively, which means the user will constantly need to shut down applications in order to keep the OS in a responsive state. This is why windows applications will always have the systray option.

OS X can effectively manage virtual memory, which means the user no longer need to constantly worry about idle applications. If the application is not being used, the resource is automatically freed up. It also means the application can be called up quickly by the user instead of having to wait for a fresh application launch.

An OS X user only cares about which documents/objects are opened. The system takes care of the rest.

At least in windows when an application does this, it puts itself in the "systray" instead of being hidden completely until you open a menu.

The systray in Windows is often very crowded, since every application wants to avoid the taskbar entry clutter. This, along with the tiny area and the tiny systray icons, make the systray just as unusable as the taskbar.

Like I said before, an OS X user doesn't care about which applications are launched: They just call it up and the system will do the right thing (launch if the application hasn't been opened yet and open a new window if the application has no opened windows etc.) If you insist on knowing which applications are launched, you can use the dock, which indicates launched applications with a black triangle beside their icons.

Of course, many people new to OS X will find this behaviour to be unintuitive after years of using Windows. The key here is to try to work with the system instead of working against it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Erh...
by someone on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 18:12 in reply to "RE[3]: Erh..."
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

Actually, the apps that DO stay open let you know, or at least ASK you first. So it's not inconsistent really.

Actually, this is really a windowsism. It stems from the fact that Windows is still incapable of managing virtual memory effectively, which means the user will constantly need to shut down applications in order to keep the OS in a responsive state. This is why windows applications will always have the systray option.

OS X can effectively manage virtual memory, which means the user no longer need to constantly worry about idle applications. If the application is not being used, the resource is automatically freed up. It also means the application can be called up quickly by the user instead of having to wait for a fresh application launch.

An OS X user only cares about which documents/objects are opened. The system takes care of the rest.

At least in windows when an application does this, it puts itself in the "systray" instead of being hidden completely until you open a menu.

The systray in Windows is often very crowded, since every application wants to avoid the taskbar entry clutter. This, along with the tiny area and the tiny systray icons, make the systray just as unusable as the taskbar.

Like I said before, an OS X user doesn't care about which applications are launched: They just call it up and the system will do the right thing (launch if the application hasn't been opened yet and open a new window if the application has no opened windows etc.) If you insist on knowing which applications are launched, you can use the dock, which indicates launched applications with a black triangle beside their icons.

Of course, many people new to OS X will find this behaviour to be unintuitive after years of using Windows. The key here is to try to work with the system instead of working against it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Erh...
by Shane on Tue 4th Apr 2006 01:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Erh..."
Shane Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, the apps that DO stay open let you know, or at least ASK you first. So it's not inconsistent really.

What if I don't want to use a key shortcut? What if I want to be able to throw my mouse to the top right and click the X (presuming the app is maximized)? Why not make it possible at least?

Consistency is not as important as what the user expects. If an app lets the user know what it's doing, then consistency isn't as relevant.


Consistency is the best way to achieve what the user expects. In fact, given that most UI decisions were completely arbitrary at the start, the metaphors rely on consistency to work.

I should not have to be told what the application will do if I press "x". You are complaining that it's too hard to press shortcut keys, yet it's better to have a dialog box pop up and having to read it and hit "ok"?

At least in windows when an application does this, it puts itself in the "systray" instead of being hidden completely until you open a menu.

Your application will still show in the dock if you hide it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Erh...
by someone on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 16:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Erh..."
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

I prefer consistency. In OS X, I know that clicking on the "x" will *always* close but not quit the application. In windows, clicking the "x" on the contact list of an IM application will generally hide the application, but not quit it. However, clicking the "x" on a "normal" applicaiton will quit it.

Actually, OS X is not as consistent as you think. Utility applications like Software Update and System Preference will quit once you close the window. However, multidocument applications will remain open when you close the last window.

Reply Parent Score: 1