[little a]

hello all

as the title foretells, this is one of those desperate threads--or perhaps more accurately, one of those threads of desperation--where a PC person asks for help with OS X.

here are a few things i don;t get/can't quite figure out:

on my pc, firefox stores my favorite bookmarks just about the browser windows and marks each one either in text or with an icon (when the website offers such an icon). on OSX, i get the marks but only the text references show up (i.e. no icons). can this be corrected?

on my pc, when i want to install a program, it has an installer. on OSX, i feel lost. i download firefox and the installer shows up as a giant firefox logo. all i have to do is drag it into my applications folder? that's it? everything i will need for that program gets installed?

on my pc, i can regulate the start point for my battery improving battery life. on OSX, it seems the battery is always charging up to 100%. can this be controlled? t

TIA

alfio

[mduell]

Originally Posted by little a 

on my pc, firefox stores my favorite bookmarks just about the browser windows and marks each one either in text or with an icon (when the website offers such an icon). on OSX, i get the marks but only the text references show up (i.e. no icons). can this be corrected?

This is a Firefox quirk where sometimes it doesn't download the favicon for a site. I have a folder of 8 links to different forums at MacNN, and only 7 of them have the favicon for the site. Weird, yes, but not related to OS X.

Originally Posted by little a 

on my pc, when i want to install a program, it has an installer. on OSX, i feel lost. i download firefox and the installer shows up as a giant firefox logo. all i have to do is drag it into my applications folder? that's it? everything i will need for that program gets installed?

The most common way of installing apps on OS X is to download a disk image. You then mount that disk image (by double clicking on it), open the mounted disk image, and drag/drop the application (the "giant firefox logo") to your Applications folder. Then you can create a shortcut in your dock (by dragging/dropping the app from your Applications folder to the dock) and delete the "installer" by dragging both the disk image file and mounted image to the trash. It's a complicated process that confuses a lot of newbies; I've seen some users who run the app out of the disk image forever, because they don't know any better. Some apps will still come with an installer like you're familiar with from Windows; inside the disk image they will have an icon that says "Installer" or similar, which you then just run from the disk image.

Originally Posted by little a 

on my pc, i can regulate the start point for my battery improving battery life. on OSX, it seems the battery is always charging up to 100%. can this be controlled?

Not that I know of, and I'm not convinced there's really a good reason to do so. As far as I know, 10 5% partial cycles are just as bad as one 50% partial cycle.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by little a 

on my pc, i can regulate the start point for my battery improving battery life. on OSX, it seems the battery is always charging up to 100%. can this be controlled?

I'm not at all clear what you mean by "regulate the start point" but battery charging on a Mac is not constantly on. Once your battery reaches a 100% charge, it stops being charged until it dips below a threshold of about 95%. Only then will it start re-charging again.

If your reading is 100% and it is still charging, it is probably because the battery hasn't been calibrated properly (i.e. the software thinks it is 100% charged, but in fact it isn't and thus it continues to charge until it actually is). Did you calibrate your battery? I believe the manual tells you how to do this as it isn't quite the same for Li-polymer batteries as it is for the Li-ion battery in my PB (which is basically - run from the battery until the Mac goes to sleep due to low charge, then recharge fully in one go... battery is now calibrated).

FWIW, mduell is incorrect to say that "It's a complicated process..." - it isn't at all. However, conceptually, it is difficult for people coming from the PC to the Mac because it is not something they are used to. Also, it isn't intuitive unless you know why it works the way it does. However, once you do, there is nothing remotely difficult about it and it is very, very easy.

In brief. Software installation used to be like this back in the days of floppy disks:

Insert disk, disk mounts on desktop, open disk window, copy application/application folder to hard drive by drag and drop (or, if it used one, install it by running the installer application on that disk), close disk window, eject disk.

This is exactly the same now, except the floppy disk is now represented virtually by a file format called a disk image (which has the extension .dmg) and you now download the .dmg rather than inserting a physical medium into your computer.

So, what happens today is:

Download the .dmg, mount the disk image (double-click the .dmg file to open it), drag and drop application to hard drive - preferably into the Applications folder (or run the installer application), close the disk image window, eject the disk image.

Additional steps that now exist because it is a downloaded file and not a physical disk:
Once installed, you can delete the .dmg if you want or you can keep it for archival reasons (e.g. on a backup drive or burnt to CD). Also, sometimes the .dmg is delivered as a compressed format when you download it (e.g. a .zip, .gzip, or .sit file) which needs to be decompressed before you can access the .dmg. If it is a .sit file, you will need the third party application called Stuffit Expander because the .sit compression format is proprietary.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by little a 

i download firefox and the installer shows up as a giant firefox logo. all i have to do is drag it into my applications folder? that's it? everything i will need for that program gets installed?

The answer to that is a very simple "yes!". If the installation is a drag and drop installation, everything that is needed is contained within the application "package" and when you launch it for the first time following installation, the support files (if they are required) and preferences are copied into the ~/Library/ folder for you.

Those applications which require support files that need to be installed into more exotic locations than the user's own Library folder will require an installer application to be used (typically, these are .pkg files that launch Apple's Installer application when double clicked, though there are also other legacy installer file formats, such as VISE installations which are sometimes used by applications that have been ported from OS 9 and earlier to be usable in OS X).

[mduell]

Originally Posted by JKT 

FWIW, mduell is incorrect to say that "It's a complicated process..." - it isn't at all. However, conceptually, it is difficult for people coming from the PC to the Mac because it is not something they are used to. Also, it isn't intuitive unless you know why it works the way it does. However, once you do, there is nothing remotely difficult about it and it is very, very easy.

In brief. Software installation used to be like this back in the days of floppy disks:

Insert disk, disk mounts on desktop, open disk window, copy application/application folder to hard drive by drag and drop (or, if it used one, install it by running the installer application on that disk), close disk window, eject disk.

This is exactly the same now, except the floppy disk is now a represented virtually by a file format called a disk image (which has the extension .dmg) and you now download the .dmg rather than inserting a physical medium into your computer.

So, what happens today is:

Download the .dmg, mount the disk image (double-click the .dmg file to open it), drag and drop application to hard drive - preferably into the Applications folder (or run the installer application), close the disk image window, eject the disk image.

Additional steps that now exist because it is a downloaded file and not a physical disk:
Once installed, you can delete the .dmg if you want or you can keep it for archival reasons (e.g. on a backup drive or burnt to CD). Also, sometimes the .dmg is delivered as a compressed format when you download it (e.g. a .zip, .gzip, or .sit file) which needs to be decompressed before you can access the .dmg. If it is a .sit file, you will need the third party application called Stuffit Expander because the .sit compression format is proprietary.

Perhaps I should say unobvious or manually intensive instead of complicated; you're right, the process is relatively straightforward once you're familiar with it. But having to double click this, then double click that, then drag and drop here, then drag and drop there, then close this, then delete those icons is not obvious for newbies or switchers (coming from the "run the installer, click next next next next, delete installer" world).

I think it would make a lot more sense if applications were distributed in a different container than a disk image. The idea of mounting a disk image makes sense for actual disk images, but for an application bundle it would make more sense to just drag and drop the app without the mounting step. Either distribute programs simply as the application bundle (.app), or inside a zip container (with a unique extension for handling purposes) that could be opened and treated like the mounted image.

I appreciate the idea of keeping the same metaphor as software installed from a floppy, but at this point in time I think it makes more sense to simplify the process rather than hang on to deprecated metaphors.

Some way of automatically adding new applications to the dock for all users would also be nice.

[OreoCookie]

@mduell
The reason to go via a disk image is simple: OS X stores a lot of information that are beyond most non-native filesystems. Putting everything into a disk image is playing it safe.

Having a disk image is no worse than having to open a zip file and I think the difficulty switchers have is because it works differently and not because it is `complicated'.

[JKT]

Well, the other very good reason for using disk images is that it also allows you to try an app without installing it. Open image, run app - like it, install it; don't like it, don't install it and eject. However, I see your point, it would be simpler if developers could just zip the package. However, IIRC I think the problem with that is, once you decompress it, you lose the package format and your application bundle turns into a folder and doesn't function.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Some way of automatically adding new applications to the dock for all users would also be nice.

One person's nicety would be another's annoyance. This would be difficult to do IMO. It would have to be an either/or situation and some people would undoubtedly find it exceptionally annoying for another user's app installation to alter the content of their own Dock, while others would find it very useful... but how would you accommodate both?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@mduell
The reason to go via a disk image is simple: OS X stores a lot of information that are beyond most non-native filesystems. Putting everything into a disk image is playing it safe.

Having a disk image is no worse than having to open a zip file and I think the difficulty switchers have is because it works differently and not because it is `complicated'.

What filesystem information does an app need? The new application container format could preserve all that without being a disk image.

It is worse because it adds an extra, confusing step. They download the dmg, double click it, and instead of getting a window they can drag the app out of, they get another icon on their desktop with the same name. I've seen it confuse first time computer users as well as switchers, so it's not just an issue of habit.

Originally Posted by JKT 

One person's nicety would be another's annoyance. This would be difficult to do IMO. It would have to be an either/or situation and some people would undoubtedly find it exceptionally annoying for another user's app installation to alter the content of their own Dock, while others would find it very useful... but how would you accommodate both?

I didn't say make it mandatory, I said it would be nice to have it as an option. Something like right clicking on a dock icon in your user account and selecting "Add to all users docks", which would then prompt for administrator credentials.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I didn't say make it mandatory, I said it would be nice to have it as an option. Something like right clicking on a dock icon in your user account and selecting "Add to all users docks", which would then prompt for administrator credentials.

That was somewhat my point - this could be useful for some users but irritating to others on the same system.How would you accommodate both types of user on the same system? I don't think you could.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by JKT 

That was somewhat my point - this could be useful for some users but irritating to others on the same system.How would you accommodate both types of user on the same system? I don't think you could.

With a two step approach:
For enterprise managed systems, there could be a global option (I'm not sure what the OS X equivalent of Windows Group Policy Objects is) to enable or disable it (defaulting to enabled).
For home systems, each user could have an option (again defaulting to enabled) in System Preferences to allow/disallow other users to add items to their dock.

Of course both options would be available to every user, so a user in an enterprise managed system could still disable it for their own user. But with only admins (see previous comment about credential prompt) able to add items to other users docks, I don't think it would be a huge issue.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by JKT 

Well, the other very good reason for using disk images is that it also allows you to try an app without installing it. Open image, run app - like it, install it; don't like it, don't install it and eject.

I think this is not really an advantage: Since installation is just a matter of drag/drop of the application package. It's just a matter of where it is dragged/dropped to. Eg, if you downloaded a straight application package, instead of a disk image (if this was actually possible) to your desktop, you could still try it out there and then either drag it to your /Applications folder if you liked it or to the Trash if you didn't. It would be much less hassle than fiddling with a disk image.

Another way of looking at is is that with an image, you have to do TWO installs instead of one (if an install is simply a matter of of placing a file/package on your hard disk). Firstly, you have to install the disk image (usually on your desktop), then you've got to mount and open the image. Then you've got to install the application to somewhere else. Then you've got to eject and delete the image.

However, I see your point, it would be simpler if developers could just zip the package. However, IIRC I think the problem with that is, once you decompress it, you lose the package format and your application bundle turns into a folder and doesn't function.

I'm not sure what the best solution is, but disk images are definitely a very crude method of preserving the filesystem metadata for distribution. I believe that this can now be all done within a .zip file, but that's not a lot better than an image.

Perhaps some new 'distribution' file format is needed (eg, .dist). It could be effectively a zip (or image?) file that is handled differently by the finder, and when double clicked, it not only uncompresses (or mounts), but deletes the original file automatically (or copies, ejects deletes).

Or perhaps this behaviour would only occur if dragged to the Applications folder.

It's still not a great solution, but the disk image distribution method is VERY UGLY, and Apple really ought to come up with something a lot nicer, but still preserve the simplicity of drag/drop installation.

[frdmfghtr]

I'll chime in on the "pro-image" argument.

I'm not sure I see why the method is "ugly." If the app is in any format other than the .app format, you have to open it before you can drag and drop the application. What's the difference between opening a disk image and a zip file? I liked the comparison to the installation floppy disk or installation CD, to make it more up-to-date.

Imagine this: you unzip a file but don't specify where to unzip to, so it defaults to the current directory. Now you have several files in a directory but you don't know what they are or where in the directory you can find them. I've done this many times on my Windows machine; stick a zip file on the desktop and unzip it. Instead of creating a folder for the unzipped files, I ended up with several hundred new files on the desktop. What a PITA! Granted the Mac's distribution of apps keeps them in a single .app file, but there's still going to be several files making their way to the desktop, instead of one concise location.

A disk image shows up on the desktop, easy to find every time because you know where it will be. When you are done you eject it. No mess, no fuss. All the contents are back in one image file, right where you left it.

Having come from the Windows world, I greatly prefer the .dmg distribution method to zip files or installers, but that's just my opinion.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by frdmfghtr 

I'll chime in on the "pro-image" argument.

I'm not sure I see why the method is "ugly." If the app is in any format other than the .app format, you have to open it before you can drag and drop the application. What's the difference between opening a disk image and a zip file? I liked the comparison to the installation floppy disk or installation CD, to make it more up-to-date.

The difference is that it adds an extra step (mount dmg, then open mounted volume) and adds confusion (having two icons on the desktop with very similar names).

[Chuckit]

I really like DMG distribution, but there's some kind of flaw in it, because nobody gets it intuitively. People are always like, "Is that Firefox? Oh, that's not Firefox? So I'm supposed to run Firefox from in there? Huh?"

[Brass]

Originally Posted by frdmfghtr 

I'll chime in on the "pro-image" argument.

I'm not sure I see why the method is "ugly." If the app is in any format other than the .app format, you have to open it before you can drag and drop the application. What's the difference between opening a disk image and a zip file? I liked the comparison to the installation floppy disk or installation CD, to make it more up-to-date.

Imagine this: you unzip a file but don't specify where to unzip to, so it defaults to the current directory. Now you have several files in a directory but you don't know what they are or where in the directory you can find them. I've done this many times on my Windows machine; stick a zip file on the desktop and unzip it. Instead of creating a folder for the unzipped files, I ended up with several hundred new files on the desktop. What a PITA! Granted the Mac's distribution of apps keeps them in a single .app file, but there's still going to be several files making their way to the desktop, instead of one concise location.

A disk image shows up on the desktop, easy to find every time because you know where it will be. When you are done you eject it. No mess, no fuss. All the contents are back in one image file, right where you left it.

Having come from the Windows world, I greatly prefer the .dmg distribution method to zip files or installers, but that's just my opinion.

Mac OS X makes sure that unzipping files always creates a folder to unzip them into, even if the zip file doesn't explicitly do so itself. This entirely avoids the problem on Windows that you speak of. Now what is the advantage of disk images again?

[JKT]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The difference is that it adds an extra step (mount dmg, then open mounted volume) and adds confusion (having two icons on the desktop with very similar names).

Actually, it needn't do so. The developer can set it up so that the disk image window opens automatically once it is mounted (and most do), so no extra step is required. I suppose this could be considered another advantage as simply unzipping a file will not present the application to you and you will have to find it or the folder containing it first. As the window can also have a background, you can supply instructions on how to install via an image and text (which Firefox does, but does really badly as so many people never work out what it means).

(Note, I still see people's point and I fully recognise that it isn't 100% intuitive, but once they know how it works it shouldn't cause people any further problems).

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by frdmfghtr 

What's the difference between opening a disk image and a zip file?

A ZIP-archive simply unpacks. No step 2. No step 3. [voice=Jeff Goldblum]Hahahahhahahahaha![/voice]

A dmg needs to be mounted, the app needs to be dragged out, then the disk image needs to be unmounted. This is extremely confusing to almost everybody.

ZIP-archives would be the ideal way to distribute applications, but unfortunately ZIP does not support advanced file attributes and afaik not even long file names or Unicode file names. Mac OS X' built-in ZIP compression/decompression as used by the Finder takes care of this by storing this information in an extra folder within the ZIP-archive, but simply using StuffIt Expander or any other tool to demcompress the ZIP-archive destroys the application inside. So using ZIP for application distribution is a support nightmare, and unfortunately we are stuck with disk images.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I really like DMG distribution, but there's some kind of flaw in it, because nobody gets it intuitively. People are always like, "Is that Firefox? Oh, that's not Firefox? So I'm supposed to run Firefox from in there? Huh?"

The flaw you've noticed is user stupidity.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Some way of automatically adding new applications to the dock for all users would also be nice.

I don't understand why you feel it's so difficult to open a dmg, drag the app to the applications folder, run it and click 'keep in dock' on the app icon. Having the OS automatically add every app I installeds shortcurt to my dock would be annoying and bothersome - it's not a desktop, it has limited screen real-estate. I don't want shortcuts of every app in my dock.

[cybergoober]

I wonder why internet-enabled disk images never really took off? You downloaded the .dmg, it mounted, copied the app or whatever to your download directory, then sent the .dmg to the trash. That eliminates most of the "confusing" aspects of the issue.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by cybergoober 

I wonder why internet-enabled disk images never really took off? You downloaded the .dmg, it mounted, copied the app or whatever to your download directory, then sent the .dmg to the trash. That eliminates most of the "confusing" aspects of the issue.

It was a potential security hole.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The flaw you've noticed is user stupidity.

To a certain degree, yes. But on the other hand, there's nothing particularly intuitive about download a file that creates a fake disk that contains an application that you must drag to your real disk.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The flaw you've noticed is user stupidity.

Um, no. It is simply user ignorance, not stupidity.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The flaw you've noticed is user stupidity.

No. The flaw he's noticed is a completely unintuitive layer of abstraction that no user can be expected to grasp without explanation.

Note: I sell and support these boxes, and the .dmg issue ranks pretty much at #1 of user-confusion issues. Look at an ordinary user's machine sometime. Chances are, you will find no fewer than four aliases to .dmg files, most of them in the Applications folder, and some at various places in the user's home folder, and at least one or two of the links on the dock will actually mount a .dmg and run the application from there. Try it. You'll see.

People who've been dealing with computers too long tend to forget that most people don't work like computers. Nor can or should they be expected to.

That's what the Mac was all about.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

I don't understand why you feel it's so difficult to open a dmg, drag the app to the applications folder, run it and click 'keep in dock' on the app icon. Having the OS automatically add every app I installeds shortcurt to my dock would be annoying and bothersome - it's not a desktop, it has limited screen real-estate. I don't want shortcuts of every app in my dock.

That's not what I asked for or described. I have no problem creating a shortcut in my dock. I didn't mention anything automatic. I want a way to create a shortcut in the dock for the other 5 users of the "family" Mac.

[pyrite]

when i started out on mac i thought the instructions were more than sufficient.. i didnt know that the second copy of the icon on my desktop was a mounted disk image, but i opened it, i followed the instructions on screen to drag it to applications, then figured i should get rid of it, including the original dmg, all based on my previous windows habits (deleting zip files/setup.exe files after using them).. trash became eject, the icon went away. is it really that different or that much less intuitive than a zip file, which creates a second decompressed set of the data anyway?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by analogika 

No. The flaw he's noticed is a completely unintuitive layer of abstraction that no user can be expected to grasp without explanation.

Note: I sell and support these boxes, and the .dmg issue ranks pretty much at #1 of user-confusion issues. Look at an ordinary user's machine sometime. Chances are, you will find no fewer than four aliases to .dmg files, most of them in the Applications folder, and some at various places in the user's home folder, and at least one or two of the links on the dock will actually mount a .dmg and run the application from there. Try it. You'll see.

People who've been dealing with computers too long tend to forget that most people don't work like computers. Nor can or should they be expected to.

That's what the Mac was all about.

 
No, that's just user stupidity and is equivalent to how some Windows uses have .exes strewn about. I think most Mac users get it. Here's the thought process that I would expect a person to go through when dealing with a regular disk image for the first time. Let's assume it did not automatically get mounted:
1. User sees .dmg on desktop and double clicks it (trying to install it, perhaps).
2. User sees it mount as a disk image.
3. Users opens disk image and sees an instruction to drag the application to the Applications folder and then throw away the disk image.
4. User copies the application and closes the disk image window.
5. User then throws away disk image and .dmg.

After discovering how the simple process works, the user won't even need to think about those steps. Will some people be confused? Sure. Some people are confused by pumping gas. That doesn't mean we should gear everything to the level of the ignorant.

And anyway, what would you prefer? Having everything require an installer like in Windows? Having a .dmg automatically place its application in the Applications folder after being double clicked? The first option is completely awful, and the second would confuse established users even more and even raise security issues. Now Safari automatically mounts disk images by default, and if the developer chooses to Safari can even mount the disk image, place the application on the desktop and then discard the disk image and .dmg. I don't have a problem with that approach, but I also think it's better for the user to know what a .dmg is and how to use it. If the user lacks that skill, there are probably many other basic computing tasks he or she is incapable of performing. There's a difference between great ease of use and completely dumbing something down. This isn't brain surgery, rocket science or iMac disassembly. It's a very simple process.

[mduell]

In theory, I think this is a better process:
1. User downloads .app file.
2. User places .app file in their Applications directory.

The problem here is that in practice you can sometimes significantly decrease the file size with even basic compression. So let's invent a new file format called Apple Software Installer (oh so clever). ASI files end with the extension .asi and are zip archives containing one or more files. ASI files are treated just like a folder, the same way Windows treats zip files. Now the process looks like this:
1. User downloads .asi file.
2. User double clicks on .asi file; a window opens showing the contents.
3. User drags the application contained within to their Applications folder.
4. User deletes or archives the .asi file.

Which is exactly like today's image-based method, without the "pointless" step of mounting the image. Looking at this from a Lean (as in Lean manufacturing) perspective, the image mounting step is waste. Like a tooling change, it's something you have to do along the way to your goal, but it does not add any value in and of itself.

No installers, no automatic application copying, none of the other straw men that you've mentioned.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by mduell 

In theory, I think this is a better process:
1. User downloads .app file.
2. User places .app file in their Applications directory.

The problem here is that in practice you can sometimes significantly decrease the file size with even basic compression. So let's invent a new file format called Apple Software Installer (oh so clever). ASI files end with the extension .asi and are zip archives containing one or more files. ASI files are treated just like a folder, the same way Windows treats zip files. Now the process looks like this:
1. User downloads .asi file.
2. User double clicks on .asi file; a window opens showing the contents.
3. User drags the application contained within to their Applications folder.
4. User deletes or archives the .asi file.

Which is exactly like today's image-based method, without the "pointless" step of mounting the image. Looking at this from a Lean (as in Lean manufacturing) perspective, the image mounting step is waste. Like a tooling change, it's something you have to do along the way to your goal, but it does not add any value in and of itself.

No installers, no automatic application copying, none of the other straw men that you've mentioned.

This is similar to what I suggested above. However, it should be made even simpler still.

Ideally, the process should be something like:

1. Download something from the internet (eg, a .asi file)
2. Double-click the .asi file
3. Click either 'OK' or 'Cancel' or 'Specify Location' or 'Unpack entire content to Desktop' button when the Finder asks if you want to install the contents of the file in the Applications folder.

The system should then move the original .asi file to the trash automatically, so save the user the trouble, IF this option is their default preference (which could also be overridden in the Finder dialogue in step 3).

The .asi package format definition should allow the person who created the .asi to define which items within would be copied to the Applications folder (eg, just the .app, or perhaps a folder containing the .app and other items).

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by mduell 

In theory, I think this is a better process:
1. User downloads .app file.
2. User places .app file in their Applications directory.

The problem here is that in practice you can sometimes significantly decrease the file size with even basic compression. So let's invent a new file format called Apple Software Installer (oh so clever). ASI files end with the extension .asi and are zip archives containing one or more files. ASI files are treated just like a folder, the same way Windows treats zip files. Now the process looks like this:
1. User downloads .asi file.
2. User double clicks on .asi file; a window opens showing the contents.
3. User drags the application contained within to their Applications folder.
4. User deletes or archives the .asi file.

Which is exactly like today's image-based method, without the "pointless" step of mounting the image. Looking at this from a Lean (as in Lean manufacturing) perspective, the image mounting step is waste. Like a tooling change, it's something you have to do along the way to your goal, but it does not add any value in and of itself.

No installers, no automatic application copying, none of the other straw men that you've mentioned.

You've just described a .zip file, except that when OS X unzips a zip file, the contents get placed into a folder. No need for your "ASInine" suggestion.

[mduell]

Brass: I like the idea.

Person Man: But that's just the problem; OSX handles zip files like it handles disk images, creating yet another icon on the desktop with a very similar name. My suggestion is really just handling zips like Windows handles them.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Brass: I like the idea.

Person Man: But that's just the problem; OSX handles zip files like it handles disk images, creating yet another icon on the desktop with a very similar name. My suggestion is really just handling zips like Windows handles them.

Oh, you'd like a zip file containing no folders to extract and put 16 zillion icons on the desktop? Or would you prefer it open and let you browse through the contents without extracting anything? (Like on Windows).

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

Oh, you'd like a zip file containing no folders to extract and put 16 zillion icons on the desktop? Or would you prefer it open and let you browse through the contents without extracting anything? (Like on Windows).

The latter, and there should usually only be one file inside, the .app bundle.

[zro]

I can't remember the last time I opened a .dmg that didn't open a new Finder window at its mount point. I've never minded it and it sure didn't take me long to figure out what was going on when I first started seeing them. It's really no more complicated than any other archive format.

I think developers who include an alias to the Applications folder in the disk image itself are really thinking ahead. I always "install" into a sub folder, so I never use it, but I'm sure tons of people appreciate it. What I like more is when the contents are copied from the disk image to the location of the .dmg, the disk image is unmounted and the .dmg archive is trashed. All automagically upon opening the image. Vis: Imprint 1.3.3 for Mac Free Download - Softpedia


I hate it when application installers add their app(s) to my Dock and I'd hate it even more if someone I knew were able to do it to me whenever they see fit. Why stop at the Dock? Let's add stuff to the menu bar and the Desktop... That's a dumb idea. Having it be an "enterprise" option seems like it would make sense, but let's not go down the road of Home, SOHO, Professional, Professional Ultimate, etc. licensing non-sense. So why not have it be an option for OS X Server? Well, a user template is much more practical than group wide alterations to existing personal settings (which the Dock is). Face it, those types of systems aren't going to have an admin downloading new apps the users won't already have access to when their account is created, which is where a user template makes more sense, or they start using an existing one.

[CaptainHaddock]

Originally Posted by mduell 

In theory, I think this is a better process:
1. User downloads .app file.
2. User places .app file in their Applications directory.

This probably won't work for technical reasons. An app bundle is actually a folder, and the http protocol doesn't give any simple way (as far as I know) to upload and download folders.

So the obvious solution is to put the app inside a container file — like a .dmg, which works perfectly, and can even be set to auto-mount, have its app bundle extracted, and then un-mount. I don't see the problem here.

[Big Mac]

mduell recognizes that issue, and his only suggestion is to take the mounting of the .dmg step out.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

mduell recognizes that issue, and his only suggestion is to take the mounting of the .dmg step out.

Which is the crux of the problem. The file metadata (permissions, executable bits, legacy type/creator codes, etc) needs to be preserved somehow, hence zip, or dmg, but he hates the idea of that extra step of mounting the disk image.

Internet enabled disk images only really work seamlessly if open safe files is on, but good security practices dictate turning it off. You can then double click on an internet enabled image and it will work its magic, putting the app (or the folder containing the app) on the desktop. It's as close to what he wants as we're going to get, but people need to explicitly make the disk image do that.

[P]

ZIP archives made in OS X also preserves the metadata that you need - distribute apps like that, and you've fixed it for a lot of people. Those that it won't work for are those with special modbits (setuid root, which many admin apps are) - they need a disk image. The rest just do it because it looks so cool.

The best thing would still be to have one consistent process. If we could trust disk images, Safari's automounting feature would work just fine - afterall, one of my regular PC cleaning steps is to delete all those installers that clutter up the desktop of newbies and not-so-newbies, so leaving disk images around is hardly any worse. In fact it's better, because you get more flexibility in where to put the app and the disk image at least looks like something other han the app - you have no idea how many newbies reinstall the app every day, because they run the installer (which then usually opens the app).

Personally, I wish Apple would switch to mounting disk images in userspace - that way, automatically opening disk images would be no more dangerous than automatically opening a disk image, and we could let Safari go on opening them automatically.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by P 

ZIP archives made in OS X also preserves the metadata that you need - distribute apps like that, and you've fixed it for a lot of people. Those that it won't work for are those with special modbits (setuid root, which many admin apps are) - they need a disk image. The rest just do it because it looks so cool.

In the eyes of mduell, that is a flawed solution because using ZIP archives still requires the "extra step" of opening the resulting folder.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by P 

Personally, I wish Apple would switch to mounting disk images in userspace - that way, automatically opening disk images would be no more dangerous than automatically opening a disk image, and we could let Safari go on opening them automatically.

Could you elaborate on that?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

 
No, that's just user stupidity and is equivalent to how some Windows uses have .exes strewn about. I think most Mac users get it.

[wishful thinking about thought processes of the uninitiated in an ideal world snipped]

There's a difference between great ease of use and completely dumbing something down. This isn't brain surgery, rocket science or iMac disassembly. It's a very simple process.

BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED. It is NOT grasped without explanation.

None of the people I have supported are dumb. None of them are of anything less than average intelligence.

My father was a highly intelligent man, but the concept of a computer filesystem was incredibly difficult to grasp for him. It is an abstraction, and it is confusing. This is precisely why applications like iTunes and iPhoto exist: to enable people to deal directly with their own content.

And this is precisely why the current .dmg method is unnecessarily complex and confusing.

Go on claiming it's because people are stupid.

You're wrong.

Yes, people can learn these things. People can even learn to operate Windows! Yes, humans are capable of dealing with bullshit that stands in the way of managing their stuff and doing their tasks. But they shouldn't need to.

Macintosh is about making computers work like the humans that work with them. Removing complexities that stand in the way of that. Simplifying what can be simplified.

[little a]

Originally Posted by JKT 

I'm not at all clear what you mean by "regulate the start point" but battery charging on a Mac is not constantly on. Once your battery reaches a 100% charge, it stops being charged until it dips below a threshold of about 95%. Only then will it start re-charging again.

what i mean is just that, regulating the point at which the battery will start recharging. that 95% you mentioned is not exactly ideal for me and i'd like to bring it down to about 40% because that's what i'm used to and what i've read elsewhere works best with this generation of batteries. i gather from the other responses that tehre is no way to regulate this in OS X then...

alfio

[malax]

Does no one buy software on CD any more? The disk image metaphor applies just a well (if not better) to a CD-ROM as to a floppy.

I don't see what's unintuitive about the process of installing an application from a CD:
1. put the CD in.
2. drag the application to the Application folder
3. eject the disk. (and if you forget to do this step or don't bother until you need the drive, so be it)

To run the app, you locate it in the Application folder or wherever you dragged it. When it's running, if you like it in your dock, select Keep in Dock (or jiggle it, but that's not exactly intuitive).

So how is it different when something comes as a .dmg file instead of a CD? Gee, step 1 is "open disk image" instead of "insert CD." That's a real stumper.

I greatly prefer drag and drop installations over the "heavy" installer method.

[sushiism]

"This is similar to what I suggested above. However, it should be made even simpler still.

Ideally, the process should be something like:

1. Download something from the internet (eg, a .asi file)
2. Double-click the .asi file
3. Click either 'OK' or 'Cancel' or 'Specify Location' or 'Unpack entire content to Desktop' button when the Finder asks if you want to install the contents of the file in the Applications folder.

The system should then move the original .asi file to the trash automatically, so save the user the trouble, IF this option is their default preference (which could also be overridden in the Finder dialogue in step 3).

The .asi package format definition should allow the person who created the .asi to define which items within would be copied to the Applications folder (eg, just the .app, or perhaps a folder containing the .app and other items)."

Thats even more complicated and wizardy than the current method

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by sushiism 

The .asi package format definition should allow the person who created the .asi to define which items within would be copied to the Applications folder (eg, just the .app, or perhaps a folder containing the .app and other items)."

Security problem.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by malax 

So how is it different when something comes as a .dmg file instead of a CD? Gee, step 1 is "open disk image" instead of "insert CD." That's a real stumper.

The difference is precisely that a .dmg is NOT a physical CD that you insert, eject, and then put on your shelf.

It is some sort of concept of something that you download, that's in your machine, then you have to do something with it, and then it stays in your machine unless you delete it, but you have to make sure that you delete it and not something else that it did or made or something. Best not to touch it if it works.

It is an abstraction that needs to be explained, and is of an order of magnitude more complex than a physical CD, simply because of the fact that it's ALL "virtual".

People are not "stupid" for not getting it; they simply shouldn't have to.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The difference is precisely that a .dmg is NOT a physical CD that you insert, eject, and then put on your shelf.

But he is right, it's a lot like removable media. You obtain it in a specific way (it just happens that that way is through the Internet directly), you access it in a specific way (by double clicking a .dmg rather than by inserting it into a drive), and you dispose of it in a certain way after using it (by ejecting the disk image and either archiving or trashing the .dmg, just as you eject the disc and either archive or trash it). It's really quite simple.

It is some sort of concept of something that you download, that's in your machine, then you have to do something with it, and then it stays in your machine unless you delete it, but you have to make sure that you delete it and not something else that it did or made or something.

It's in your machine just like a disc is in your machine until you choose to eject it and take it out of the tray. First you eject the disk image and then you choose to archive or trash the .dmg it came from. You cannot make a mistake about trashing the wrong thing to get rid of it because the .dmg cannot be trashed before its disk image is unmounted (just like a disc). Some fault disk images because users get confused about the purpose of copying to disk and launching from disk rather than launching from disk image, but the same can be said for physical discs.

Best not to touch it if it works.

Yeah, if you're a computer tard.

It is an abstraction that needs to be explained, and is of an order of magnitude more complex than a physical CD, simply because of the fact that it's ALL "virtual".

No, it's not an order of a magnitude more difficult. It's something easily grasped intuitively by most people, not just the computer literate. Computer tards may have a problem, but as I said they're going to have problems with many types of computer operations if they cannot grasp such a simple thing. Disk images are simple. I'll admit it's not quite one double click simple, but it's almost as simple. Working with the terminal can be hard. Programming is hard. Tweaking OS X or hardware is hard. Disk images are easy.

People are not "stupid" for not getting it; they simply shouldn't have to.

They may not be stupid, but if they cannot grasp .dmgs they are computer tards. You don't need pat yourself on the back or consider yourself a computer expert if you can grasp the concept because it's an easy thing to understand.

[P]

(Disk images in userspace)

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Could you elaborate on that?

Think of how a regular FTP app works compared to an FTP plugin in the Finder - the FTP app usually still looks like the Finder, but it isn't the Finder. When downloading a file - copying it to the Finder - there is no way that the application can do something that the user can't. The system interface would be limited to reading and writing files with the privileges of the the user. Apple could easily do that - instead of DiskImageMounter, it would be DiskImageExplorer, but the user wouldn't know. They would have to reimplement filesystem drivers to run in this app, but they'd just have to replicate the kernel interface used by filesystem plugins and use the existing filesystem plugins - in fact, it would be an excellent help when developing filesystems.

What DiskImageMounter does is use kernel interfaces to act on a file that is untrusted. Those kernel interfaces weren't meant to be used on files, they were meant to be used on actual drives. That is trusted content by definition - there is no security without local security - so those system calls don't do the sanity checking they would if the source was untrusted. To be secure, either DiskImageMounter would have to parse the file enough to know that it's secure, or those kernel interfaces would have to be rewritten, hardened. That last might not be a bad idea in the era of small USB drives, but it's hard work. The first is just silly, because then DiskImageMounter would have to change for every change in the filesystem contained in the disk image.

[wataru]

I see some people are saying that users who can't figure out how to properly install an app from a .dmg are stupid...

This is not true. Experienced Mac users may have no problem figuring this out, but I have met many perfectly intelligent people who have been confused by the whole thing. Why in the world should a "fake disk" appear when you open a file? Try explaining that to someone who isn't a geek. Tell them first what a "file system" is, then explain why one should exist inside a file. It's completely counterintuitive to how most people understand what a "file" is.

I have no problem with disk images. I think they're almost elegant as a solution to the problem of software distribution. But they are not intuitive for the average user.