[Veltliner]

Well, the application is what I downloaded SuperDuper for.

But what exactly is a disc image? (I know now I can throw them away after installation).

And what is a "volume"? Can I throw it away after installation?

By the way: SuperDuper was marked as a 28$ software, but I just downloaded it, and it never prompted me to pay.

Does the expression "Shareware" have to do with that?

[TETENAL]

A "volume" is a unit that contains the files and folders. Usually, but not necessarily, this corresponds to one disk drive, one CD etc.
A "disk image" is a file that contains a bit for bit copy of a volume.
An "application" is a package of executable program code and resources that can be run on the computer to carry out a specific task.

See things like this:
Applications used to come (and large ones still do) on a CD. You enter your CD into your computer, that is mounted on the desktop, you then copy the application form the CD into your Applications folder, you unmount the CD which pops it out of the tray.
Many software today is distributed as downloads over the internet and not longer as CD. So you get a "disk image" to download, which is basically sort of a file with a bit for bit copy of a CD. You double-click the disk image which will mount the volume, which corresponds to inserting the CD which mounts it. You then copy the application from the volume into the Applications folder as you did with the application on CD. After that you eject the volume, as you ejected the CD and lastly you trash the disk image which corresponds to taking the CD out of the tray.

That's all there is to it. You now mastered the most obscure installation process Apple could have come up with.

[Veltliner]

Thanks, I take it that "ejecting" the volume is throwing it into the trash (as trash and eject are the same button)?

[TETENAL]

The trash becomes an "eject" button as soon as you drag a volume. You can use that or of course the "Eject" command from the file menu or contextual menu.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

That's all there is to it. You now mastered the most obscure installation process Apple could have come up with.

I've got a job at an independent mac store. I die a little inside every time I have to explain a .dmg.

[Gavin]

The thing about a Disk Image is that it works just like a real formatted disk drive. You get all the bells and whistles that come with that, like:
It can be (and usually is) HFS+ and use case insensitive filenames, resource forks, meta data, etc.
it can have big fancy icons.
it remembers where in the folder an icon is located so you can place things visually in some logical order.
It can have a background image (maybe your company logo and text that explains how to install)
It handles OS X Application Package folders properly.

And unlike Stuffit or Zip archives, which were the alternative when 10.0 came out, the finder can handle them natively. It shows up as a mounted volume on your desktop or in the sidebar, so it's easier to find than some folder which a 3rd party archive app places god knows where.

I don't mean this as a dig at the original poster - this issue come up a lot, but I really don't get how people have so much trouble with this. You click the icon, the folder opens and you drag the contents where you want it. No worse than any other file archive scheme but with the benefits listed above.

Maybe the finder should know it has an application inside and offer to drop it in the apps folder for you, then unmount it. it could give you a chance to run a virus checker over it, set up parental controls, etc. That would make it more like an installer but without the developer needing to build an installer.

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

By the way: SuperDuper was marked as a 28$ software, but I just downloaded it, and it never prompted me to pay.

Does the expression "Shareware" have to do with that?

I am a SuperDuper registered user so I don't know (can't remember) if it has to prompt you asking for register it since day one… The thing is that SuperDuper let's you use some basic operations for free; from SuperDuper site:

You can download SuperDuper! v2.1.4 right now and back up and clone your drives for free — forever!

Buy now to unlock scheduling, Smart Update (which saves a lot of time), Sandboxes, scripting and more!

Shareware is kind of try before you buy, so to speak.

[hojo]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Well, the application is what I downloaded SuperDuper for.

But what exactly is a disc image? (I know now I can throw them away after installation).

And what is a "volume"? Can I throw it away after installation?

By the way: SuperDuper was marked as a 28$ software, but I just downloaded it, and it never prompted me to pay.

Does the expression "Shareware" have to do with that?

SuperDuper backs up your hard drive by making a bit-for-bit copy (disk image) of it. Super Duper will have some limited functionality without buying it, but things like scheduling will only work after you enter your registration key, which you have to pay for.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Gavin 

The thing about a Disk Image is that it works just like a real formatted disk drive.

[...]

I don't mean this as a dig at the original poster - this issue come up a lot, but I really don't get how people have so much trouble with this. You click the icon, the folder opens and you drag the contents where you want it. No worse than any other file archive scheme but with the benefits listed above.

That up there is the problem.

How the hell is an uninitiated user supposed to deduce that a program he downloads from the internet is in fact not a program but really the utterly abstract *virtual* equivalent to a CD?

He clicks on download, sees the application he wants in a window on his computer (because the dmg will auto-mount), and double-clicks the program or sticks it on the dock.

A few (very few) applications come with a backdrop image in the DMG window that will explain what to do, and even fewer will have an alias to the appropriate folder sitting on that backdrop.

What was great about DMGs is the self-extracting feature, that would leave simply the application itself sitting on your desktop, ready to be dragged into the applications folder (or not, and it would still work fine).

Security concerns put a stop to that - actually quite ideal - distribution method, resulting in the inconsistent and stupidly abstract mess we have now.

[Veltliner]

Once you know that you can throw away the disc image like the shells of a nut after you cracked it, and ate the nut application, it's not that bad.

I was a little bit stunned by not only having an application and a dmg, but also a volume sitting on my desktop.

The volume actually discarded itself, and wasn't there any more after my next start-up.

Regarding SuperDuper, I don't actually want to clone the wole disc, just the irreplacable folders and create a bootable clone for my software as a spare copy in case of laptop hard drive crash on the road.

Can you do that, too, and how? I definitely want to have osX clone and my main photo software clone on my external hard drive.

[Veltliner]

I guess I found out how to do it.

1. Partition external hard drive with disc utility (so I can use it for other things, too, not only for backing up - which would be a waste, as my preferred external hard drive is twice the size of the iMac's, 500gb).

2. Go into scripts section and define what I want to have cloned.

3. Clone it onto the partition, with osX and my most important software on it plus the backed up important data, minus software that came with the mac but which I don't use, unimportant files.

4. Result should be a clone of the necessary in a 180gb partition, and then 285 gb rest disc space which I can use for video edits, main hard drive extension (the 500gb drive is only 465gb due to different ways to count gigabytes - just like the English currency system).

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Once you know that you can throw away the disc image like the shells of a nut after you cracked it, and ate the nut application, it's not that bad.

I was a little bit stunned by not only having an application and a dmg, but also a volume sitting on my desktop.

The nut-and-shell analogy is actually pretty good. I'll borrow that if you don't mind.

The problem is that the average user has no way of knowing this. Most Macs I support have multiple copies of the same DMGs on the desktop, in the Applications folder, on the top level of the hard disk, with aliases to the mounted volume strewn in between. The link on the Dock invariably leads to the application on one of those DMGs.

[Gavin]

analogika: I agree with what you say about ease of use.

the "disk image" concept is one of the UNIXy things we picked up with OS X. I do like the nutshell metaphor. There is a trade off between intuitiveness / ease of use and sophisticated power user needs. If it were called a Software Nut and you opened the Shell to get at the Nut (clam and pearl ?, shipping container, etc.) that might make it easier or end users to understand but it would turn off developers who understand the term "Disk Image" for exactly what it does and are therefore more likely to use it.

Maybe this is just one of the skills we need to have to really use a computer as we move into the common Internet age adolescence of computing. Just as my mom has to learn to use a password to log into use her laptop, and be at least cognizant of potentially malicious stuff she downloads; we all have to learn how to get the pictures off the camera, look at the list of wireless routers and pick our own instead of our neighbors', and the three ways to install software.

The crazy thing is that it is now easier to get my mom using the computer than it is to teach her to use her new HDTV. A sample of my recent telephone conversations: "Push the little button at the top that looks like a dead spider, now hit the left arrow 3 times, push the orange button. OK, now pick up the DVD player remote... did the blue light come on? AAAGRGRH! "

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by analogika

Most Macs I support have multiple copies of the same DMGs on the desktop, in the Applications folder, on the top level of the hard disk, with aliases to the mounted volume strewn in between. The link on the Dock invariably leads to the application on one of those DMGs.

Is this some kind of Windows mindset?

I haven't used aliases since OS 9, only keep my most frequently applications in the Dock, and instinctively make sure that I have a clean Desktop. When there's a disk image sitting on my Desktop (and sidebar), I recognise it for what it is: a disk image (floppy analogue). The disk image clearly isn't an application, because it doesn't have that kind of icon. The application is located on the disk image, and it seems obvious to me that if I want to keep it, it should be moved to the folder called ‘Applications’. That's clearly where it belongs.

[analogika]

It's not a "Windows mindset"; in fact, what you geeks don't realize is that it's no mindset AT ALL. There is absolutely NOTHING intuitive about "virtual-disks-that-are-downloaded-as-files-with-weird-extensions-but-automagically-produce-another-icon-on-the-desktop-and-in-addition-another-window-that-contains-even-more-icons".

You click on a link that says "Download Now!" and your Download window pops up showing something called "Google Earth something".

It pops open a window that contains a colorful icon thingy that's called "Google Earth", so you click on that. It jumps up and down in the Dock; your program is open. Hooray.

You use the program. You like it. You decide to keep it.

You quit the program.

You see the window that contains the program "Google Earth"

You've learned that stuff you stick onto the Dock stays there. So you stick "Google Earth" onto the Dock.

Then you close all the windows (because new users ALWAYS close all open windows when they're done with something), and you see this white thing called "Google Earth" and another weird image labeled "Google_Earth something" (or without the "something" bit if you have extensions turned off - as by default).

Hm.

"Well, I guess I can trash those - I've put it into the Dock."

Next time you open Google Earth (click on the Dock), it's broken. Damn.

Okay, start all over again.

Except this time, I don't throw away the little bits stuck on my desktop - that broke Google Earth last time. I better "Install" them this time - and drag them on to my hard drive (or into my Applications folder, depending on how confused the user is by now).

Net result: one Alias to the mounted disk image file and one .dmg in any of the locations I've mentioned, usually including one on the desktop for good measure, because the whole procedure is often done a third time before people realize that the old Dock link won't work with the newly downloaded version.

No, these are NOT stupid people. At all.

This is, drawing from my not-so-casual support experience, in fact the NORM until people have the concept explained to them.

Did you notice that Veltliner, who started this thread for EXACTLY this reason, is not a stupid person?

What seems obvious to you, "should be" and "clearly belongs" is as obvious to the uninitiated as an espresso machine or Logic Pro.

And please don't bother to explain how the .dmg and mounted image icons are so completely obviously recognizable to a person who has no more idea what a hard drive looks like than the average driver has of the inside of their gearbox.

And that mounted disk? Are you telling me that this obscure white sex-toy looks like a floppy disk?

[Chuckit]

The solution I've liked best is to have the app check if it's running on its disk image, and if it is, offer to install itself for you. So far nobody is doing it this way, but hopefully it will catch on.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by analogika 

It's not a "Windows mindset"; in fact, what you geeks don't realize is that it's no mindset AT ALL. There is absolutely NOTHING intuitive about "virtual-disks-that-are-downloaded-as-files-with-weird-extensions-but-automagically-produce-another-icon-on-the-desktop-and-in-addition-another-window-that-contains-even-more-icons".

First of all, I'm not a geek.

Virtual disks make sense to me because applications used to come on disks. You bought a magazine, it came with a CD. You checked out the apps (expanded them first, if necessary), and if you liked one, you copied it to your hard drive.

The reason I mentioned a ‘Windows mindset’ is because I understand that on Windows, downloading an application and installing it are one step. I would find that invasive and unnatural, but I can see why someone coming from a Windows environment would be confused by Apple's two‑step approach to the problem.

You click on a link that says "Download Now!" and your Download window pops up showing something called "Google Earth something".

It pops open a window that contains a colorful icon thingy that's called "Google Earth", so you click on that. It jumps up and down in the Dock; your program is open. Hooray.

You use the program. You like it. You decide to keep it.

You quit the program.

You see the window that contains the program "Google Earth"

Yes, I can relate to that.

You've learned that stuff you stick onto the Dock stays there. So you stick "Google Earth" onto the Dock.

Eeep. Wrong.

Where have I learned that? Mac Help clearly states that you're supposed to ‘install Mac OS X applications in your home folder or the Applications folder. ’ The Dock is a place to store links to your most frequently used applications.

‘In Mac OS X, you'll find many frequently used applications in the Dock, and you can add applications to the Dock whenever you want. You can also open your most recently used applications and documents by choosing the Recent Items command in the Apple menu.

Your applications are in the Applications folder.’

(Mac Help again. There's a ‘Help’ menu right in the Finder.)

Then you close all the windows (because new users ALWAYS close all open windows when they're done with something), and you see this white thing called "Google Earth" and another weird image labeled "Google_Earth something" (or without the "something" bit if you have extensions turned off - as by default).

I've never closed all open windows, why would you do that?

Hm.

"Well, I guess I can trash those - I've put it into the Dock."

Next time you open Google Earth (click on the Dock), it's broken. Damn.

No kidding. If you'd put it in the correct place (your hard drive), it wouldn't be. If you insert a CD or DVD and run an app off it, would you make an alias to it and expect it to work after you've ejected the disk?

Okay, start all over again.

Except this time, I don't throw away the little bits stuck on my desktop - that broke Google Earth last time. I better "Install" them this time - and drag them on to my hard drive (or into my Applications folder, depending on how confused the user is by now).

Them? The Google Earth app is clearly and uniquely identified by its icon. Why would anyone drag the disk image, or attempt to drag the mounted volume instead?

By now, you should have learned your lesson (drag apps you want to keep to your hard drive), and not make the same mistake again.

Net result: one Alias to the mounted disk image file and one .dmg in any of the locations I've mentioned, usually including one on the desktop for good measure, because the whole procedure is often done a third time before people realize that the old Dock link won't work with the newly downloaded version.

That's why you get a big fat question mark on the broken Dock icon, to tell you it won't work.

No, these are NOT stupid people. At all.

Have I been calling anyone stupid?

This is, drawing from my not-so-casual support experience, in fact the NORM until people have the concept explained to them.

They should be able to figure it out by themselves, and I believe most would do so pretty quickly, if left to their own devices. It's not
that difficult, if you think about it.

Did you notice that Veltliner, who started this thread for EXACTLY this reason, is not a stupid person?

I don't know him that well, but it seems to me that he found the situation far less confusing than you make it out to be.

What seems obvious to you, "should be" and "clearly belongs" is as obvious to the uninitiated as an espresso machine or Logic Pro.

There is a folder called ‘Applications’ on the computer, it's in the Finder Sidebar by default, prominently visible. If the user is confused, there's a ‘Help’ menu at the top of the screen.

And please don't bother to explain how the .dmg and mounted image icons are so completely obviously recognizable to a person who has no more idea what a hard drive looks like than the average driver has of the inside of their gearbox.

And that mounted disk? Are you telling me that this obscure white sex-toy looks like a floppy disk?

The point is, it sort of looks like a disk. Not a file, not an app, not a folder. What else could it be?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Where have I learned that? Mac Help clearly states that you're supposed to ‘install Mac OS X applications in your home folder or the Applications folder. ’ The Dock is a place to store links to your most frequently used applications.

Yeah, it's real user-friendly to require people to read through the entire eleventy-billion-volume Mac Help just to install an application.

[analogika]

You can pick apart my little anecdote all you want.

It's very nice for you that YOU are familiar enough with the workings of your computer to reason all of that through.

I've *tried* to explain to you the reasoning behind the results that I see on client's machines, every day. It's wonderful that you fail to relate to this, but that doesn't really have much bearing on the fact that this IS a problem.

And no, a mounted disk image looks like an awful lot of things, but most CERTAINLY NOT like a "disk". Because, as you say above, applications used to come on CDs (or floppies), THAT is what disks look like.

NOT like oblong white things with a black slot in the front.

Listen, it's NOT that hard: Just pretend that you know NOTHING about computers, that you HAVEN'T read the Mac Help and probably aren't going to, and that the concept of dealing with "files" in "folders" on "disks" is already such a HUGE abstraction - albeit the fundamental one - that you have enough trouble getting your head around that one even when you need to at some point (although Apple's iApps and default "Save" locations make it very simple not to have to think about this.

Are you really so unaware of how tremendously abstract all of this is? The average user has never seen a hard drive. He has Word and the Internet on his computer.

Why the hell would you expect someone who has no idea of the difference between a "hard drive" and a "computer" to understand what a "virtual" disk is without any prior explanation?

Do you really never deal with run-of-the-mill, ordinary people?

Please read the original post again and explain to Veltliner exactly why he's a stupid person because all this stuff makes perfect sense once you think about it - go on!

I'll tell you what's a "Windows mindset": Placing the burden on the user. If you don't get it, it's probably 'cuz you're just too stupid. "User error."

The "Mac mindset", by contrast, implies that if you're not "getting" it, it's because the developer ****ed it up.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by analogika

Because, as you say above, applications used to come on CDs (or floppies), THAT is what disks look like.

NOT like oblong white things with a black slot in the front.

I realise that, and perhaps something like a floppy icon would make more sense, but isn't the oblong white thing supposed to represent a generic, stylised hard drive enclosure or an external disk drive of some sort?

Listen, it's NOT that hard: Just pretend that you know NOTHING about computers, that you HAVEN'T read the Mac Help and probably aren't going to, and that the concept of dealing with "files" in "folders" on "disks" is already such a HUGE abstraction - albeit the fundamental one - that you have enough trouble getting your head around that one even when you need to at some point (although Apple's iApps and default "Save" locations make it very simple not to have to think about this.

Right. I'm sitting in front of the computer, and I don't know what to do. I look at the menu bar and see the word Help. Isn't it logical for me to click on it?

Are you really so unaware of how tremendously abstract all of this is? The average user has never seen a hard drive. He has Word and the Internet on his computer.

Why the hell would you expect someone who has no idea of the difference between a "hard drive" and a "computer" to understand what a "virtual" disk is without any prior explanation?

Do you really never deal with run-of-the-mill, ordinary people?

Why Word? The average user doesn't need Word, the newbie user wouldn't even have heard of Word, and the only reason any average user would have that piece of crạp on his computer is because it came pre‑installed on his PC.

I'm getting the impression that your ‘average user’ is a Windows switcher who probably shouldn't have switched.

The way I see it, if you cannot grasp the OS X way of doing things within half an hour, you don't need a computer.

Please read the original post again and explain to Veltliner exactly why he's a stupid person because all this stuff makes perfect sense once you think about it - go on!

There you go again, putting words in my mouth.

Maybe you should read his post again. He knows what an application is. He knows that he can throw away the disk image after installing the application. He's asking about whether he can throw away the mounted volume, as well, which doesn't particularly matter, considering that he cannot empty the Trash while the dmg is mounted. It seems to me that Veltliner was curious about the differences between volumes and disk images, that does not support your position that the entire distribution method and metaphor is overly complicated.

I'll tell you what's a "Windows mindset": Placing the burden on the user. If you don't get it, it's probably 'cuz you're just too stupid. "User error."

The "Mac mindset", by contrast, implies that if you're not "getting" it, it's because the developer ****ed it up.

Alternatively, you could say that the Windows mindset implies that the user is an idiot, whereas the Mac mindset implies that the user is capable of quickly getting the hang of an OS that is really quite straightforward. And she usually is, that's why there's no need for the plethora of user guides and manuals that you get in Windowverse.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Right. I'm sitting in front of the computer, and I don't know what to do. I look at the menu bar and see the word Help. Isn't it logical for me to click on it?

People (especially windows switchers) don't use the built-in help. One of my favorite 'tricks' when a customer is in the shop with a basic question, is to scratch my head like I don't know the answer, then search in help.

Why Word? The average user doesn't need Word, the newbie user wouldn't even have heard of Word, and the only reason any average user would have that piece of crạp on his computer is because it came pre‑installed on his PC.

Because all their friends are sending them .doc's in emails, and .wmv files. We sell a copy of M$ Office with the vast majority of our Macs.

I'm getting the impression that your ‘average user’ is a Windows switcher who probably shouldn't have switched.

Like it or not, the macintosh platform is picking up a lot of windows users.

The way I see it, if you cannot grasp the OS X way of doing things within half an hour, you don't need a computer.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Right. I'm sitting in front of the computer, and I don't know what to do. I look at the menu bar and see the word Help. Isn't it logical for me to click on it?

Nobody who's ever used Windows would EVER consider the ludicrous notion that a "Help" menu might ever be "helpful" to anybody who doesn't already know what to look for.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Alternatively, you could say that the Windows mindset implies that the user is an idiot, whereas the Mac mindset implies that the user is capable of quickly getting the hang of an OS that is really quite straightforward. And she usually is, that's why there's no need for the plethora of user guides and manuals that you get in Windowverse.

Indeed, that is the case. However, you evidently confuse *understanding* with *training*.

They are complete opposites.

Apple's focus is on the former.


Just drop it, red rocket: The very fact that this thread even EXISTS means you've already lost your argument.

You obviously miss the irony in that.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Why Word? The average user doesn't need Word, the newbie user wouldn't even have heard of Word, and the only reason any average user would have that piece of crạp on his computer is because it came pre‑installed on his PC.

I'm getting the impression that your ‘average user’ is a Windows switcher who probably shouldn't have switched.

The way I see it, if you cannot grasp the OS X way of doing things within half an hour, you don't need a computer.

That pretty much settles it:

You have never, ever, dealt with the type of user that makes up the VAST majority of computer owners.

Your arrogance is the equivalent of the auto buff who sneers at any driver who doesn't understand the inner workings of his car because he doesn't - and shouldn't - have to. You know, the kind that has to *ask* about the different types of motor oil before he buys a can.

You have lost track of why Macintosh was even created.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by analogika

Nobody who's ever used Windows would EVER consider the ludicrous notion that a "Help" menu might ever be "helpful" to anybody who doesn't already know what to look for.

Let me get this straight:

Windows users are conditioned to think of ‘Help’ menus as being useless. Ergo, ‘Help’ menus are useless, even when they actually do help, as they do on OS X?

Indeed, that is the case. However, you evidently confuse *understanding* with *training*.

They are complete opposites.

Apple's focus is on the former.

What I'm saying is that Mac OS X is a comparatively intuitive and easy to understand operating system. The learning curve and the apparent counter‑intuitiveness that you perceive do not arise from inherent flaws in Apple's approach, they're the result of users having to unlearn their Windows habits.

Just drop it, red rocket: The very fact that this thread even EXISTS means you've already lost your argument.

You obviously miss the irony in that.

I don't think you understand this thread. It is clear from his first few posts that Veltliner has figured out how to deal with disk images and their contents. Your ‘average’ user, apparently a technology illiterate MS Word and internet user who isn't willing to change any of the ways he's used to interacting with the computer in the slightest, is not posting in this thread, and if one of those people showed up here, he'd be guaranteed to get told off and to go back to using his f*cking Windows box. I'm sorry that apparently you have to deal with so many of these users, analogika, but I very much doubt that your experience is representative.

That pretty much settles it:

You have never, ever, dealt with the type of user that makes up the VAST majority of computer owners.

In other words, Windows users.

That is why I asked whether the multiple‑DMGs‑and‑aliases‑strewn‑all‑o ver‑the‑place scenario you described was the result of some kind of Windows mindset.

Apparently, it is.

Your arrogance is the equivalent of the auto buff who sneers at any driver who doesn't understand the inner workings of his car because he doesn't - and shouldn't - have to. You know, the kind that has to *ask* about the different types of motor oil before he buys a can.

Interesting analogy.

Considering that cars come with user manuals that tell you which oil you should be using, the customer should not have to ask.

You have lost track of why Macintosh was even created.

I thought it was created to make computing enjoyable to non‑technical users.

That is NOT equivalent to making the experience effing identical to what the ‘average user’ is used to from Windows.

Think different, man.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Let me get this straight:

Windows users are conditioned to think of ‘Help’ menus as being useless. Ergo, ‘Help’ menus are useless, even when they actually do help, as they do on OS X?

Actually, if you'd ever dealt with normal human beings, you'd find that even those NOT conditioned by Windows feel some trepidation about using the computer to solve problems they're having USING the computer.

If the machine is confusing me, the machine is NOT the first thing I'd think of searching to find an answer to my confusion.

95 out of a hundred times, the user will bee-line straight to the nearest expert and ask them.

Again, THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THIS THREAD proves that you are WRONG.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

What I'm saying is that Mac OS X is a comparatively intuitive and easy to understand operating system. The learning curve and the apparent counter‑intuitiveness that you perceive do not arise from inherent flaws in Apple's approach, they're the result of users having to unlearn their Windows habits.

You are completely correct in that assessment. Unfortunately, it DOES NOT APPLY to the conundrum described in the original post of this thread, because the way disc images are handled now (there's at least THREE DIFFERENT WAYS) is just completely COUNTER-intuitive and DO arise from inherent flaws in Apple's approach, because the initial idea they had in their approach has been completely destroyed over the past six years.

Windows has NOTHING to do with Veltliner's problem.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I don't think you understand this thread. It is clear from his first few posts that Veltliner has figured out how to deal with disk images and their contents. Your ‘average’ user, apparently a technology illiterate MS Word and internet user who isn't willing to change any of the ways he's used to interacting with the computer in the slightest, is not posting in this thread, and if one of those people showed up here, he'd be guaranteed to get told off and to go back to using his f*cking Windows box. I'm sorry that apparently you have to deal with so many of these users, analogika, but I very much doubt that your experience is representative.

As a person who actually WORKS in computer retail, I can representatively tell you that you're full of **** and have no clue about the people you're talking about.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

In other words, Windows users.

That is why I asked whether the multiple‑DMGs‑and‑aliases‑strewn‑all‑o ver‑the‑place scenario you described was the result of some kind of Windows mindset.

Apparently, it is.

Nope. A lot of the people I SELL these boxes to and ACTUALLY GIVE SUPPORT TO are first-time computer owners.

Your argument that this confusion arises from a "Windows mindset" is as arrogant as it is irrelevant, because whatever interaction these first-time owners may have had with Windows machines in their workplace, installing software was definitely NEVER part of the experience.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Interesting analogy.

Considering that cars come with user manuals that tell you which oil you should be using, the customer should not have to ask.

You obviously haven't been around long enough to remember back when the hallmark of the Mac user was that he'd never had to touch a manual, ever.

That you don't remember this explains your technoid arrogance.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I thought it was created to make computing enjoyable to non‑technical users.

That is NOT equivalent to making the experience effing identical to what the ‘average user’ is used to from Windows.

Think different, man.

So close, and so COMPLETELY wrong.

The Mac was not about making computing *enjoyable* to non-technical users, it IS about making computing ACCESSIBLE to non-technical users.

Dumping pictures of little dog-eared documents with odd metal boxes on them on your desktop, which open a new window AND leave a white oblong thing on your desktop OR simply leave the application sitting on your desktop are definitely understandable, relatable, and genuinely intuitive, if I understand you correctly.

Did I mention that in some cases, the contents of that window can be double-clicked and open the program I thought I downloaded, and in some cases, they'll open this install thingy, and in some cases, the window comes with instructions to drag something somewhere, in others, it just works anyway, but I must remember to drag it someplace else afterwards to "install" it...

Dude.

You CAN'T be for real.

You are NOT the representative user. You are NOT the newbie user. You are NOT the lowest common denominator Apple set out to empower all those years ago.

Just face it:

Your experience and expertise and "logic" means jack **** to Auntie Jem who's buying her first computer because she wants to play online bridge tournaments. Or old Otto who's getting his first computer because his health insurance company has told him to look up which medications are paid for on their internet homepage.

These people are buying Macs, and they're a LOT of the people buying Macs today.

[Chuckit]

I'll put it this way: Almost everybody I've ever spoken to has been confused by disk images at first. I'm talking smart people, dumb people, Windows users, people who had hardly used a computer — almost every one of them was flummoxed by disk images. Once I explained what was going on, the smarter ones figured it out quickly, but I've seen enough to convince me that the way Mac software is usually distributed now is counterintuitive. That's my real-world experience.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by analogika

Actually, if you'd ever dealt with normal human beings, you'd find that even those NOT conditioned by Windows feel some trepidation about using the computer to solve problems they're having USING the computer.

If the machine is confusing me, the machine is NOT the first thing I'd think of searching to find an answer to my confusion.

It should be. The machine has the answers. If the user has accessibility issues, the Universal Access preference pane will help him. If he has more generic questions, the built‑in Help system will help him.

You obviously haven't been around long enough to remember back when the hallmark of the Mac user was that he'd never had to touch a manual, ever.

That you don't remember this explains your technoid arrogance.

You're the one who started talking about cars and motor oil. I pointed out the very obvious fact that cars do come with owner's manuals, which state what oil should be used. If somebody spends tens of thousands on a new car and can't even be bothered to read the booklet that came with it, that's a very strange person. If such a person then goes to the garage, or worse, some supermarket, and has to ask about what type of oil he should be buying, that person has just identified himself to the mechanic / salesman as an idiot. Not only will he then get ripped off, he will deservedly get ripped off. If you give a damn about your car, you read the bloody owner's guide.

As Macs go, I don't see a requirement to read the user guide or the online help that comes with it. However, it doesn't hurt to look at it, and if you do have problems, those sources should be your first stop. Not asking some ‘expert’.

The Mac was not about making computing *enjoyable* to non-technical users, it IS about making computing ACCESSIBLE to non-technical users.

The original Macintosh was designed by a small team that worked long hours with a passionate, almost messianic fervor, inculcated by our leader, Steve Jobs, and the excitement that we felt during its creation shines through in the finished product. The attitudes, values and personalities of the designers are reflected in the thousands of subtle choices that they make in the course of their design, coalescing into a spirit or feeling imparted to its users.

We were excited because we thought we had a chance to do something extraordinary. Most technology development is incremental, but every once in a while there's an opportunity to make a quantum leap to a whole new level. A few years earlier, the Apple II and other pioneering systems made computing affordable to individuals, but they were still much too hard for most people to use. We felt that the Mac's graphical user interface had the potential to make computing enjoyable to non-technical users for the very first time, potentially improving the lives of millions of users.
Folklore.org: Macintosh Stories: The Macintosh Spirit

Dumping pictures of little dog-eared documents with odd metal boxes on them on your desktop, which open a new window AND leave a white oblong thing on your desktop OR simply leave the application sitting on your desktop are definitely understandable, relatable, and genuinely intuitive, if I understand you correctly.

The second event is what occurs with an Internet‑Enabled Disk Image, isn't it? Never encountered those, I keep ‘Automatically Open’ off. I agree that there shouldn't be two different kinds, that is confusing.

Anyway, all the confusion regarding DMGs can be traced back to the Dock. Some novice users instinctively assume it's a drop zone for actual applications. That is Apple's fault. How is the novice supposed to know that Dock items are aliases? If user focus were drawn to the Finder hierarchy instead, DMG expansion misunderstandings could be eliminated.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

As Macs go, I don't see a requirement to read the user guide or the online help that comes with it.

Except in this case, where practically nobody is able to anticipate the system's behavior without being explicitly told what's going on. That's a clue that the interface being used is fundamentally broken.