4 ms·

The window management for OSX sort of... sucks. I've been using Windows for years and just bought a Mac and I was pretty shocked at how much effort it took to t

The window management for OSX sort of... sucks. I've been using Windows for years and just bought a Mac and I was pretty shocked at how much effort it took to tile two windows.

baddox 17y ago
I'm not a big OS X user (I had a Macbook pro for a couple of years, that's it), but it always seemed to me that the OS wasn't really based on the idea of "windows." Obviously it's possible to tile windows, but the way the top menu bar adapts to the action application, plus the way some applications like Photoshop work (with the toolbars being separate windows with no central background window) always led me to believe the intended paradigm of OS X was quite different than that of Windows.
GHFigs 17y ago
Your experience with a new interface will be improved by making use of the affordances it offers rather than lamenting the ones it does not. To do otherwise is akin to eating soup with a fork.
- jsankey 17y ago
  Your comment might be more constructive if your offered the OP a solution to their actual problem of tiling two windows (or perhaps the underlying need to compare the contents of two windows easily). What affordances does OSX offer in this respect?
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    The problem of tiling two windows is one with many solutions, one of which is the submission itself. As to the actual problem expressed by the OP, my comment addresses that.
- euroclydon 17y ago
  Who doesn't need to occasionally view two windows at once? Is that not one of the affordances that OSX offers. By the way, do I need to list all the feature of OSX that I do use for you not to assume I don't use them?
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    You are not talking about just viewing two windows at once. You are talking about a very particular way of doing so, which is the way you are used to. Everyone experiences this with all kinds of interfaces. If a new interface does not work that particular way, you have the options of: adapting yourself to the interface, adapting the interface to yourself (e.g. with third-party software), rejecting the interface, or complaining about the interface on message boards. I happen to believe that the former options are preferable to the latter. And no, I do not need you to list anything. This is not a macho pissing match and I am not insulting your manhood. Use what works best for you.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
dtf 17y ago
I agree, but I'm still kind of an Mac noob so maybe I'm just doing it wrong. The two things that irk me most: having to hit that tiny triangle at the bottom right of the window to resize it (compare to Linux/etc window managers' shortcut of moving or resizing the nearest corner from anywhere within the window), and the seeming lack of fullscreen support in most apps, which really hurts on my tiny macbook screen.
- alecthomas 17y ago
  This application is useful for resizing and moving: http://coderage-software.com/zooom/index.html http://coderage-software.com/zooom/index.html However, it's kind of ordinary that you have to pay $15 to get functionality that should be included in the WM.

The window management for OSX sort of... sucks. I've been using Windows for years and just bought a Mac and I was pretty shocked at how much effort it took to tile two windows.

baddox 17y ago

I'm not a big OS X user (I had a Macbook pro for a couple of years, that's it), but it always seemed to me that the OS wasn't really based on the idea of "windows." Obviously it's possible to tile windows, but the way the top menu bar adapts to the action application, plus the way some applications like Photoshop work (with the toolbars being separate windows with no central background window) always led me to believe the intended paradigm of OS X was quite different than that of Windows.

GHFigs 17y ago

Your experience with a new interface will be improved by making use of the affordances it offers rather than lamenting the ones it does not. To do otherwise is akin to eating soup with a fork.

jsankey 17y ago
Your comment might be more constructive if your offered the OP a solution to their actual problem of tiling two windows (or perhaps the underlying need to compare the contents of two windows easily). What affordances does OSX offer in this respect?
- GHFigs 17y ago
  The problem of tiling two windows is one with many solutions, one of which is the submission itself. As to the actual problem expressed by the OP, my comment addresses that.
euroclydon 17y ago
Who doesn't need to occasionally view two windows at once? Is that not one of the affordances that OSX offers. By the way, do I need to list all the feature of OSX that I do use for you not to assume I don't use them?
- GHFigs 17y ago
  You are not talking about just viewing two windows at once. You are talking about a very particular way of doing so, which is the way you are used to. Everyone experiences this with all kinds of interfaces. If a new interface does not work that particular way, you have the options of: adapting yourself to the interface, adapting the interface to yourself (e.g. with third-party software), rejecting the interface, or complaining about the interface on message boards. I happen to believe that the former options are preferable to the latter. And no, I do not need you to list anything. This is not a macho pissing match and I am not insulting your manhood. Use what works best for you.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

dtf 17y ago

I agree, but I'm still kind of an Mac noob so maybe I'm just doing it wrong. The two things that irk me most: having to hit that tiny triangle at the bottom right of the window to resize it (compare to Linux/etc window managers' shortcut of moving or resizing the nearest corner from anywhere within the window), and the seeming lack of fullscreen support in most apps, which really hurts on my tiny macbook screen.

alecthomas 17y ago
This application is useful for resizing and moving: http://coderage-software.com/zooom/index.html http://coderage-software.com/zooom/index.html However, it's kind of ordinary that you have to pay $15 to get functionality that should be included in the WM.