Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac OS X > Advanced features missing in OS X

Advanced features missing in OS X (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2007, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
"Usability" is VERY directly linked to "Predictability".

Difficult to grasp when you're coming from Windows, but the most basic fundamental of Apple's interface design.

Apple would rather omit features than reduce usability - something that Microsoft has NEVER understood, and one prime reason their software is so horrifically cluttered.

And the Cmd-P thing was actually not such a bad example, since PDF creation is - on Mac OS X as on Windows - done via the printing engine.
I understand, but when the command x (cut) does not, in fact, cut, how is that 'predictability'?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2007, 05:33 PM
 
I have one minor thing that's been bugging me all of Tiger: the Open and Open With contextual menu items. When I'm in column view and browsing many folders deep and I see something a few columns back that I want to open as well, I can't just right-click and click Open, because Open doesn't appear—only Open With. This happens only when a folder is you current selection in a column. Open itself will only appear if your current selection is a file. It's silly that I should have to select a file to make Open appear a few columns back in my contextual menu. Open and Open With should be there all the time. People don't want to be forced (I know I don't) to wade through large Open With menus. See below:

     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2007, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
I understand, but when the command x (cut) does not, in fact, cut, how is that 'predictability'?
THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT and why Windows is broken.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2007, 12:48 AM
 
A maximize button that actually works correctly
iMac 24" | Core 2 Extreme 2.8GHz | 4GB RAM | 500GB HD
PowerBook G4 15" HR | 1.67GHz | 2GB RAM | 100GB HD
R.I.P 1995 Toyota Supra NA-T
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2007, 04:46 AM
 
OS X doesn't HAVE a "maximize" button.

It has a "make this window as large as it needs to be to display its contents without unnecessarily killing my screen real estate" button that actually works quite well more often than not.

I hate hate HATE unnecessarily maximized windows - who the hell benefits from two huge gray areas to the left and right of content? I'd rather have the screen depth and see other windows to switch between them with a simple click.

Best thing is always when the Windows dweebs come into the store and insist on maximizing, say, Safari or iTunes on the 30" Cinema Display.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2007, 11:55 AM
 
^ What he said. It's always been a "maximize content" button. Please don't make windows fill my screen unnecessarily. If I wanted a full screen button and awkward window-within-window applications, I'd use Windows. *shudder*
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2007, 12:16 PM
 
Every year, I send the Apple this humble wish:

Please add a text field in the 'Save' dialog for entering keywords for Spotlight. Preferably a smart one, that has auto-complete for previously entered words.

On a related note, the 'Get Info' - window in Finder is horribly hidden and clumsy, IMHO. This is one of the few things Windows does well, it shows you file info in the default configuration of Explorer windows. Without going too far into the task-based vs. tool-based quarrel, I'd welcome an 'Info Sidebar' as a default option.

Apple seems to have actually noticed that people have trouble locating 'Get info' and 'View options' in Finder, from amidst all the zillion menu items and came up with a debatable solution, the 'Action'- button in Finder windows. Clumsy, too.

Abstracting even more, I think there could be a lot done in streamlining the Finder/Dock/System Preferences/Desktop/Apple Menu- frankenstein of an experience. Apple keeps nibbling at it... remember, when Desktop Pictures were set from 'Finder Preferences' and nobody could find it?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2007, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
OS X doesn't HAVE a "maximize" button.
Is that so?

I suggest you click the zoom button in Mail, iCal, Dictionary, TextEdit, iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, Terminal, FontBook, Activity Monitor, Grapher, Script Editor, and the Spotlight window.

Let me know how that goes.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2007, 12:41 PM
 
Well I'll be...

That's stupid.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2007, 02:06 PM
 
So is that the default action for the button when there is no content to maximize? When Safari's window has no content in it, the maximize button turns it into a tall default window—not full screen. It's stupid that it functions in different ways in different apps like this. I always understood it from the OS 9 days up until OS X that it was a content maximizer, since the core of using the Mac is that it is window based and not built around having your screen entirely filled by an app's window. I will concur with its stupidity. Maybe they'll finally decide what it should do universally in Leopard? If not, I'll still live.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2007, 03:33 PM
 
The main purpose of the green button is to fill out the trinity of red-yellow-green, because it looks silly with just red and yellow.

It is a content maximizer, but if the app developer doesn't really have any content to maximize it to, it just maximizes the window to fill the screen. I know that this is confusing, but I don't really see a better way to set it up. Just making it a maximize button replaces a margially useful button with one that breaks the metaphor completely. I'd rather just remove it.
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2007, 04:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
He's talking about one user logging into two home folders on the same server. Your computer can only be logged in as one user on a given server.
What confused me is beeson3c's use of the term home folder.

To me a home folder is the one containing prefs, documents and more and is the one automatically mounted when logged in.

The others are shared folders, and users shouldn't know other users login and passwords - it defeats the purpose of the security in passwords.

If a user needs access to a certain sharepoint, give him access at the server level.
( Last edited by JLL; Jun 19, 2007 at 04:34 AM. )
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2007, 04:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by MindFad View Post
I have one minor thing that's been bugging me all of Tiger: the Open and Open With contextual menu items. When I'm in column view and browsing many folders deep and I see something a few columns back that I want to open as well, I can't just right-click and click Open, because Open doesn't appear—only Open With. This happens only when a folder is you current selection in a column. Open itself will only appear if your current selection is a file. It's silly that I should have to select a file to make Open appear a few columns back in my contextual menu. Open and Open With should be there all the time. People don't want to be forced (I know I don't) to wade through large Open With menus.
Why don't you just double click?
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2007, 09:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The main purpose of the green button is to fill out the trinity of red-yellow-green, because it looks silly with just red and yellow.
Sounds about right

The button could take on new directions, however. Zooming to show more content is just one way to focus the user on a particular window's contents. I would love a smart zoom combined with a fade of the background windows- this would be more in line with the Mac tradition of working with multiple documents than an all out 'fit screen'. That would even resemble the darker UI directions of the pro apps, if done towards black.

Think currently does this, albeit very clumsily. Would work much better with the Zoom button, I think. (See also my ancient pitch.)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2007, 09:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by JLL View Post
What confused me is beeson3c's use of the term home folder.

To me a home folder is the one containing prefs, documents and more and is the one automatically mounted when logged in.

The others are shared folders, and users shouldn't know other users login and passwords - it defeats the purpose of the security in passwords.

If a user needs access to a certain sharepoint, give him access at the server level.

There are plenty of scenarios where one might want to access multiple accounts and inherit the capabilities and permissions of other users.
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2007, 09:58 AM
 
Can you name one situation where it couldn't be handled better by ACLs?

The way you want defeats the purpose of passwords in the first place.
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2007, 10:22 AM
 
Will ACLs allow you access to files that have been chmod 600, for instance? Just wondering, as an aside.. When you save new files to a directory that is not yours, aren't they saved with chown <your UID>? How would this work?
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2007, 10:37 AM
 
I would like it if Mail had better IMAP support. We use Groupwise at work, but the IT guys are cool enough to allow you to use a different client if you want. I have a mailbox with about 5000 messages in the inbox and 3000 in the outbox and Mail simply chokes on all of it. It takes up to two minutes for a message to load, and Mail cannot recognize which messages in my box have attachments (this works fine for new messages, but not existing ones).

If I open the activity window, I can see that every time I try to do *anything* in mail, the application will start to download or index other, earlier messages, sometimes the same ones repeatedly. It simply isn't usable and it's a shame.

I've tried Thunderbird and Entourage, but I want Mail's UI. Groupwise for Mac? Don't even get me started. Hopefully, the next version of Mail wil have better IMAP support!

Sorry about the rant.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2007, 10:37 AM
 
Strange, I have obscenely large e-mail boxes at work, and Mail's IMAP support works all right for me.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2007, 10:56 AM
 
^ Hmm, I wonder if it's the serever to which I'm connected then. Is there any way to tell?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2007, 11:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by JLL View Post
Why don't you just double click?
Because then it takes me backwards in the chain of folders by selecting the folder which holds the file I just double-clicked, defeating the whole purpose of being able to browse many columns at once. If I arrange my files a certain way that requires I can see the last four of five folders deep, I shouldn't have to double-click, be taken back, then make my way back to where I was in the tree of folders. There's no logical reason for "Open" to not always be there anymore—it was in Panther, no matter what "select state" the Finder was in in column view; this is a problem specific to Tiger for me. "Open With" is just cumbersome for me because my file management frequently doesn't require the default app.

I'd just like the old functionality back. Silly it changed in the first place—almost feels like a bug because it makes no interface sense to me.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2007, 05:20 PM
 
So, I got to play with Leopard for a good while today, and can provide answers to many of these items on my list, as they stand now:


Mail

- Multiple identity support
- Folder subscription support
- Selection of what folders to check for new mail
- Selection of folders to Spotlight index
- Although not for me, full Exchange support would be great, and possible since Entourage is not MAPI based
- Better iCal integration. With enough Groupware support, Microsoft would probably be glad to drop Entourage. It appears as if Leopard's iCal will support delegates and free/busy info, so we are already on our way
In order:

No multiple identity support, folder subscriptions are in, no, no, didn't test, didn't test

Finder

- SSH (SSHfs) as a Connect to Server option (I'm using MacFUSE now, but since I need custom connect options I have to come up with command line connect scripts)
- Improve on the shortcomings of Appleshare or phase it out (e.g. single account/home directory mounted on a server at any given time, slow performance, metadata littering, etc.)
- Support of read/writes of other file systems (formating local drives with other file systems would be nice too)
No, didn't test, connection protocols are AFP, old Appletalk, NFS, SMB, CIFS, and possibly one other thing. No FUSE/SSHfs.

Finder performance is *much* *much* better now. Couldn't get it to beachball. Yanked Ethernet on network disk, no beachballs, moved between open files saved on network volumes, looks much better! Hopefully this won't bog down as the install ages...

Unix

- Apple's own support/implementation of Fink or Macports so that these products are stronger and more reliable. OS integration like in Ubuntu would be a great thing
- Make it so that metadata is not a major PITA. I don't want to use custom rsync binaries and have to take special considerations into account when transferring files to and from the Mac with other OSes with activities such as backups. It seems like we can't do much here until Windows supports extended file system attributes/xattr, but...
- Make iTerm the replacement Terminal app
No, didn't test, no (didn't look at the Apple terminal a whole lot, this is one thing I forgot to do).

Safari

- More easily extended. I don't want plug-ins to break across updates like PithHelmet and Saft do in Safari now. How about an API and software update mechanism like Firefox has?
- Session support if missing in Safari 3
- Better Flash performance. Watching a baseball game with the MLB Gameday applet brings the machine to its knees. Same with some YouTube and other Flash based stuff
don't know, don't know, didn't test

X11

- Needs major upgrade to xorg, replacing XFree86
Didn't test

iSync

- It would be fantastic if iSync could be used with other servers other than .Mac (probably not going to happen, I know)
Didn't test

Time Machine

- Would be great if it handled revision control in addition to full backups/snapshots. This could be a useful tool in any project development
Didn't test, but TM will support saving to network volumes, as advertised. I do believe that TM does support revisions and handles real time backups.

Quicktime

- I think QT could be far more helpful in offering to download and install necessary third-party codecs
Didn't test

Other

- LVM support might be nice
- Growl support (or something like Growl) in all apps
didn't test, no
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2007, 07:17 PM
 
Finder performance being much, much better is a good thing!
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2007, 05:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Will ACLs allow you access to files that have been chmod 600, for instance? Just wondering, as an aside.. When you save new files to a directory that is not yours, aren't they saved with chown <your UID>? How would this work?
Putting files into a folder can be set to inherit permissions from the enclosing folder.

And even without ACLs this is something that Mac OS X Server handles great.
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2007, 05:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
No, that (FUS) is extremely awkward, I would much rather use another client if it came down to that. Multiple identity support is so that I can address some of my emails in a given, single account as:

Full Name #1 <address1@domain1.com>
Full Name #2 <address2@domain2.com>

For anybody that makes use of shared mailboxes or email aliases, this feature is an absolute necessity and is already found in most other email clients, and has been for years.
They just need to do this right and add this common feature.
OK I think I get it. The current way allows you to reply with a choice of email addresses, but limits you to a single name:

John Smith j1@bob.com
John Smith jms1234@yahoo.com
John Smith jsmith@gmail.com

Where you want multiple names to go with the multiple email addresses:

John Smith j1@bob.com
Jonathan L. Smith III, C.E.O. jls1234@yahoo.com
Tech Support jsmith@gmail.com

As a work around you can always make a duplicate account (use your same email and password to create the account to get past the setup), then change it to your alternate name and email. set the account to not get your email. Clunky but it should do what you want.
You can take the dude out of So Cal, but you can't take the dude outta the dude, dude!
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2007, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Will ACLs allow you access to files that have been chmod 600, for instance? Just wondering, as an aside.. When you save new files to a directory that is not yours, aren't they saved with chown <your UID>? How would this work?
Depends on the servers ACL implementation, but it is possible. But I have to agree JLL users should not be accessing other users home folders. If two users need to share data then it needs to be put into a shared directory with proper ACLs and access controls in place.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: ~
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2007, 08:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by MindFad View Post
I have one minor thing that's been bugging me all of Tiger: the Open and Open With contextual menu items. When I'm in column view and browsing many folders deep and I see something a few columns back that I want to open as well, I can't just right-click and click Open, because Open doesn't appear—only Open With. This happens only when a folder is you current selection in a column. Open itself will only appear if your current selection is a file. It's silly that I should have to select a file to make Open appear a few columns back in my contextual menu. Open and Open With should be there all the time. People don't want to be forced (I know I don't) to wade through large Open With menus.
Not only that, but here's my 'Open With' CM list of apps to open an image file with. Kind of useless. I'm hoping for some sort of way to be able to pare this list down...


kent m is not a member of any public groups
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2007, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by JLL View Post
Putting files into a folder can be set to inherit permissions from the enclosing folder.

And even without ACLs this is something that Mac OS X Server handles great.
What is something that OS X Server handles great?

What I'm asking is if Unix permissions override ACLs, or how the two work with one another. If you wanted to share your home directory, the parent directory is going to be chmod 600, which would mean that the files in this would only be readable by the owner.

It seems to me that ACLs might be good for setting up access to arbitrary folders, but is no replacement for wanting to mount multiple home directories.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2007, 09:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Gavin View Post
As a work around you can always make a duplicate account (use your same email and password to create the account to get past the setup), then change it to your alternate name and email. set the account to not get your email. Clunky but it should do what you want.

I've tried this, it doesn't work well at all. First of all, having multiple, duplicate accounts login in a check mail simultaneously is wasteful, awkward, and confusing, but I also think that OS X Mail specifically prohibits having duplicate account into like this, IIRC.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2007, 09:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by dharknes View Post
Depends on the servers ACL implementation, but it is possible. But I have to agree JLL users should not be accessing other users home folders. If two users need to share data then it needs to be put into a shared directory with proper ACLs and access controls in place.
The reason I've wanted to do this on my FreeBSD machine is editing multiple virtually hosted websites on my server, each served from separate home directories. I've never looked into ACLs with Netatalk, but SSHfs has worked well for this (other benefits there too).

If I were to provide myself r/w access to these public_html folders, would I be able to write as this user's UID? These files need to be owned by this user, yet there will be some files in this directory that are symlinks to files not owned by this user. Will ACLs manage this?
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Nagoya, Japan • 日本 名古屋市
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2007, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by kent m View Post
Not only that, but here's my 'Open With' CM list of apps to open an image file with. Kind of useless. I'm hoping for some sort of way to be able to pare this list down...
So just go and delete all those useless Photoshop droplets. And why do you have two versions of GraphicConverter installed?
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: ~
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2007, 09:51 AM
 
Ah, it's a demo version from before I bought the latest, if you must know. Must delete that...

I could delete the little droplets, sure, but that's aside the point and maybe I might want to use some of them... The point is that it would be nice to have a way to shortlist this list... maybe via rules or something... 'exclude certain kinds of apps', or maybe create a list of preferred apps...

kent m is not a member of any public groups
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2007, 11:03 AM
 
Or if "Open" simply always appeared in the CM list, as it previously did, not with some odd functionality that was dependent on what you already had selected. Then I could open files easily in the tree of folders I've already gone through. My "Open With" list is just as bad, Kent.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2007, 06:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by shinji View Post
Finder

-Ability to ctrl+click an image and have an option to make it the desktop background.
In this case Automator is your friend. One of the first workflows I made was a 'Set as Desktop' shortcut for the Finder contextual menu. Granted you have to dig down into the Automator sub-menu to use but it still provides that simple functionality.

Originally Posted by shinji View Post
Safari

-Saving an image/movie/etc. should have an option of where to save, not just the location I specify in preferences
Unless I'm reading you wrong Safari already has this ability. Hold down Option the next time you control/right click on something.
-Trekkie
To point, click and boldly go...
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Nagoya, Japan • 日本 名古屋市
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2007, 09:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Trekkie View Post
In this case Automator is your friend. One of the first workflows I made was a 'Set as Desktop' shortcut for the Finder contextual menu. Granted you have to dig down into the Automator sub-menu to use but it still provides that simple functionality.

Unless I'm reading you wrong Safari already has this ability. Hold down Option the next time you control/right click on something.
And with Safari 3, you don't even have to hold down Option.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2007, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by kent m View Post
Not only that, but here's my 'Open With' CM list of apps to open an image file with. Kind of useless. I'm hoping for some sort of way to be able to pare this list down...
I was thinking exactly the same thing recently - is anyone aware of any way of achieving this? Even if it means editing some swollen plist...
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2007, 03:56 PM
 
Having the "Open With..." option "customizable" would really only cause further confusion. We already have a check box for "Open it with this App even if it knows nothing about this document", another check box with maybe "Show full list of all apps that use QuickTime to import" would be ugh.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: ~
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2007, 05:28 PM
 
I disagree.
The current configuration makes the menu unusable for me, and even if options did add some confusion, and I doubt that it would, I'd prefer a bit of confusion for a second or two on a pref pane to unusable.

kent m is not a member of any public groups
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2007, 06:07 PM
 
Why do you people even have those dozens of "exe" applications? Wouldn't it be easier to have just one program that can convert into any image format (like GraphicConvert) than having one for each format and size. I can't understand why anyone would even want such a setup.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2007, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
Why do you people even have those dozens of "exe" applications? Wouldn't it be easier to have just one program that can convert into any image format (like GraphicConvert) than having one for each format and size. I can't understand why anyone would even want such a setup.
They're part of the Photoshop install.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2007, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
I also see problems with the default behavior for moving stuff to a different volume (it's copied by default, rather than moved). How do you handle that with "move file - insert file" to provide a "safe" default - as the concept of Macintosh mandates -, so that people don't accidentally delete stuff off their drives? Pop up an annoying dialog box every time?
Ok, everybody who has been using this quote as their defense against "Windows" file cut and paste:

You can't delete your file by using the Microsoft cut and paste. If you don't paste it, it goes back to where it was, undeleted. Therefore, it is much more useful than the Macintosh "drag and drop" wherein if you want to move a file somewhere, you
A) need both the file's originating folder open and the folder you want to copy to open
or
B) you need to be able to see the desktop, either to drop the file there, open the folder you want it in, and move it there, or hover over a series of folders until you get to the one you want.

It could be called "Sticky move" or something, but Windows cut and paste does the EXACT same thing as Mac OS X's drag and drop, with this sole difference: In Windows, you don't have to hold down the mouse button to drag the file, rendering it impossible to, say, move a window so that you can see the desktop/ folder you are looking for. Windows cut and paste is better than copy and paste because you don't have to go back and delete the same file from the other folder.

Best of all, for those who don't like cut and paste, you just don't use it. It doesn't get in your way at ALL.

So, why not? Oh, right... because Apple is deathly afraid of "copying" Microsoft.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2007, 10:57 AM
 
adamfisher:

The problem is, what you've described is not a very user-centric approach, but a technological one.

This feature would not be obvious to most Mac users, and its usage is unintuitive. Whether it is superior does not matter so much as whether it is accessible to most users without requiring a learning curve (or, requires a learning curve that is reasonable for what is being attempted).

This is basically what a usability person might call a misrule. Users learn that copying and pasting is for text, but you are proposing an exception to this rule.

Those that know my posting know that I usually don't side with Apple about anything, but on this I do.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2007, 03:56 PM
 
^ Yep.

The victory of box-listed functionality over the users' ability to actually interface with it.

In that regard, Apple *is* "deathly afraid of 'copying' Microsoft", and absolutely correct in being so. It's what sets them apart from ALL competitors.

It's what distinguishes the iPhone from any other smartphone ever built. On paper, Apple products may have fewer listable functions, but the vast majority of users is going to do WAY more with them than with any competing product, simply because they CAN.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2007, 10:43 PM
 
Still, it won't get in the way of anyone who doesn't use it, and it will be great for those that do. I wouldn't call one more manu item "cluttering."

All in all, it doesn't really matter, Leopard won't have it, just like the Macbooks will never just have a right-click button. It will have some similar but ultimately more time consuming way to do things.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by adamfishercox View Post
, just like the Macbooks will never just have a right-click button. It will have some similar but ultimately more time consuming way to do things.
The right-click button has been discussed to death, and I honestly think that the two-finger-hold-and-click or simply two-finger-tap is by far the most elegant and universal solution out there.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2007, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
- Make iTerm the replacement Terminal app
10.5 has tabs if this is what you like about iTerm. Personally, I find iTerm too buggy and crashes far too often.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
X11

- Needs major upgrade to xorg, replacing XFree86
Done in 10.5. See Re: Xorg in Leopard?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 08:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by timmerk View Post
10.5 has tabs if this is what you like about iTerm. Personally, I find iTerm too buggy and crashes far too often.

Older versions did, but the new version is bliss... iTerm also features macros, bookmarks, and some other nice features.

When was the last time you tried iTerm? if a long time ago, it's definitely worth a new look.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2007, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
This has been discussed to death for years, and the situation is this:

Implement it the way you suggest (and the way it works on Windows), and you CANNOT call it "Cut and Paste", because it completely breaks the way cut and paste work in every other application on every mainstream operating system on the planet - i.e. cut something, and cut or copy something else, and the originally cut section is replaced on the clipboard and is GONE.
Also, a "cut" selection can be pasted multiple times all over the place. Should "Cut/Paste" of files work this way as well?

I also see problems with the default behavior for moving stuff to a different volume (it's copied by default, rather than moved). How do you handle that with "move file - insert file" to provide a "safe" default - as the concept of Macintosh mandates -, so that people don't accidentally delete stuff off their drives? Pop up an annoying dialog box every time?

I'd rather the feature go missing than it be Windows-like both in the sense of broken interface AND highest-possible annoyance factor.
I have to use windows at work sometimes, cutting in explorer is a complete disaster. I have actually lost data because of that shambles.
Its called cut so I without thinking and remembering that it behaves nothing like a real cut I will go ahead and happily cut a file then delete the folder then try and paste only to be told the file doesn't exist.
At that point I remember that cut DOES NOT MEAN cut it means "mark this file for moving"

Also copying a file then moving its containing folder causes an error when you try and paste. lots of inconsistent crap like that because cut and copy dont mean cut and copy.

Explorer and its file management should be held up infront of all junior UI designers… AS HOW NOT TO MAKE AN INTERFACE
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2007, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by adamfishercox View Post
....It could be called "Sticky move" or something, but Windows cut and paste does the EXACT same thing as Mac OS X's drag and drop, with this sole difference: In Windows, you don't have to hold down the mouse button to drag the file, rendering it impossible to, say, move a window so that you can see the desktop/ folder you are looking for. Windows cut and paste is better than copy and paste because you don't have to go back and delete the same file from the other folder.

Best of all, for those who don't like cut and paste, you just don't use it. It doesn't get in your way at ALL.

So, why not? Oh, right... because Apple is deathly afraid of "copying" Microsoft.
Ever tried Hot Corners? Make things a lot more easier than even Cut & Paste in Windows.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2007, 03:58 PM
 
what about hot corners?
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:01 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2