4 ms·

Your point about searching is really interests because I feel like it's a good example of what happens when you care about user experience. I think that Spotlig

Your point about searching is really interests because I feel like it's a good example of what happens when you care about user experience. I think that Spotlight, at the time, was really heralded as a really good search engine. Why? It found what you wanted. On Windows Vista (and later versions) search, sure, it would find the things you were looking for. But no-one gave a thought to how it should be displayed. Does the search work? Check. Feature done. Apple designed Spotlight in a way that it would actually return the results you expect when you type a search query. I bet it took a lot of effort at Apple, too, because making a good search is really difficult. If you just depend on the tools given to you by your database, you'll probably end up with something that works, but not necessarily something that does what you want.

knolan 9y ago
I think a lot of it is helped by the way MacOS works. You’ve got an Applications directory in which each app is listed as a monolithic package (or in a sub directory for built-in things like the terminal). Windows has various locations where apps are typically installed or dumped (Program files, Program files x86 , program data, app data...) where the particular executable in buried somewhere amongst everything else. Shortcuts to these and various other applications are scattered all over the place. If you build such a simple approach to dropping applications into a single directory with big obvious icons, not only does it look clean to a user but it prevents naming duplication and allows your search tool to match to this directory first so you can esasily use Spotlight as a launcher.
- quesera 9y ago
  Spotlight will find applications in any location on your disk. Also, Safari.app (e.g.) is not an executable -- it's essentially just a folder with special display characteristics in the Finder. Many app bundles contain several executables.
  - knolan 9y ago
    But spotlight doesn’t search inside those bundles, that’s the main difference. Even the ability of MacOS to list applications when using the open with context is so much faster compared to windows which grinds for several seconds to populate the list. Heck even using the New... context window in Explorer is a joke.
    - vetinari 9y ago
      MacOS has also not only bunch of preferred locations, where to find applications (except for /Applications and ~/Applications also /System/Library/CoreServices, for example), but also allows the user to place the apps anywhere. As other mentioned, users will place them on desktop, in downloads folder, etc. On top of that, getting info about the application involves parsing .plist files, followed by parsing localization.
      - twhb 9y ago
        The first is for system-wide apps, the second for apps that the user doesn’t share with others, the third for some parts of the OS itself. It would be insane to throw all that in one place. Similarly, yes, getting app info involves parsing files in a known location with a known format, how could that situation be better? I’m not sure how often people fail to put applications where they go. Especially nowadays, where most applications ship as .dmg files that open to a giant arrow telling you to drag the app to Applications, and many nag you if they’re run while not there, and App Store solves this entirely by just putting them there.
- ygra 9y ago
  > Windows has various locations where apps are typically installed or dumped (Program files, Program files x86 , program data, app data...) To be fair, neither Program Data (which is effectively ALl Users AppData), nor AppData are endorsed as application installation locations by Microsoft. For a variety of reasons. Chrome started quite a trend, though for installations without admin privileges to install to AppData for convenience.
  - Stratoscope 9y ago
    I'm not sure what not being endorsed means in this context, but I distinctly remember Microsoft going to considerable work back in the days of Windows 2000 to support per-user installations. The big change was in the registry: HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT was no longer a direct shortcut to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes, but instead was a dynamically merged view of that key and HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes. This allowed you to register COM objects for the current user without requiring administrative privileges. I and many other people were doing per-user installs long before Chrome existed. This is especially useful for apps that auto-update. If you install in Program Files [(x86)] then you will pop a UAC prompt every time the app updates. If you install per-user it can be a silent update.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  In my opinion, the whole Application Bundle/AppDir/PortableApp/whatever concept is just so clearly the right way to do application management that I have difficulty understanding how anyone could think otherwise. It's simple, intuitive, conflict free, fits perfectly into the file management metaphor, etc.
  - fredsted 9y ago
    What's interesting is that various types of users find themselves with different problems using the App Bundle way of distributing applications. For Windows users switching to Mac OS X, it's not really something they're used to doing. Instead of downloading an installer, clicking "Open" in the browser, and just following a guide leads to less issues with placing the application the correct place (Program Files), instead you get either a Zip file (so the bundle is in Downloads), an actual Installer (typically a .pkg), or a Disk Image which is often never unmounted. (I once saw a family member with 7 Flash Update disk images mounted) As such, a lot of OS X users find themselves with a the Skype app in Desktop (inside a Disk Image), their Mail on the dock and some other app in Documents or Downloads. It requires that you organise it yourself.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
      > It requires that you organise it yourself. Another way of saying it is that it lets you organize it yourself. There will always be people who don't understand, or care to understand, how the system works. You can put in all the hand-holdy nonsense you want to cater to them and they'll still exist, but you'll be adding tedious and unnecessary hurdles in the workflow of people who do know what's going on.

knolan 9y ago

I think a lot of it is helped by the way MacOS works. You’ve got an Applications directory in which each app is listed as a monolithic package (or in a sub directory for built-in things like the terminal). Windows has various locations where apps are typically installed or dumped (Program files, Program files x86 , program data, app data...) where the particular executable in buried somewhere amongst everything else. Shortcuts to these and various other applications are scattered all over the place. If you build such a simple approach to dropping applications into a single directory with big obvious icons, not only does it look clean to a user but it prevents naming duplication and allows your search tool to match to this directory first so you can esasily use Spotlight as a launcher.

quesera 9y ago
Spotlight will find applications in any location on your disk. Also, Safari.app (e.g.) is not an executable -- it's essentially just a folder with special display characteristics in the Finder. Many app bundles contain several executables.
- knolan 9y ago
  But spotlight doesn’t search inside those bundles, that’s the main difference. Even the ability of MacOS to list applications when using the open with context is so much faster compared to windows which grinds for several seconds to populate the list. Heck even using the New... context window in Explorer is a joke.
  - vetinari 9y ago
    MacOS has also not only bunch of preferred locations, where to find applications (except for /Applications and ~/Applications also /System/Library/CoreServices, for example), but also allows the user to place the apps anywhere. As other mentioned, users will place them on desktop, in downloads folder, etc. On top of that, getting info about the application involves parsing .plist files, followed by parsing localization.
    - twhb 9y ago
      The first is for system-wide apps, the second for apps that the user doesn’t share with others, the third for some parts of the OS itself. It would be insane to throw all that in one place. Similarly, yes, getting app info involves parsing files in a known location with a known format, how could that situation be better? I’m not sure how often people fail to put applications where they go. Especially nowadays, where most applications ship as .dmg files that open to a giant arrow telling you to drag the app to Applications, and many nag you if they’re run while not there, and App Store solves this entirely by just putting them there.
ygra 9y ago
> Windows has various locations where apps are typically installed or dumped (Program files, Program files x86 , program data, app data...) To be fair, neither Program Data (which is effectively ALl Users AppData), nor AppData are endorsed as application installation locations by Microsoft. For a variety of reasons. Chrome started quite a trend, though for installations without admin privileges to install to AppData for convenience.
- Stratoscope 9y ago
  I'm not sure what not being endorsed means in this context, but I distinctly remember Microsoft going to considerable work back in the days of Windows 2000 to support per-user installations. The big change was in the registry: HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT was no longer a direct shortcut to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes, but instead was a dynamically merged view of that key and HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes. This allowed you to register COM objects for the current user without requiring administrative privileges. I and many other people were doing per-user installs long before Chrome existed. This is especially useful for apps that auto-update. If you install in Program Files [(x86)] then you will pop a UAC prompt every time the app updates. If you install per-user it can be a silent update.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
In my opinion, the whole Application Bundle/AppDir/PortableApp/whatever concept is just so clearly the right way to do application management that I have difficulty understanding how anyone could think otherwise. It's simple, intuitive, conflict free, fits perfectly into the file management metaphor, etc.
- fredsted 9y ago
  What's interesting is that various types of users find themselves with different problems using the App Bundle way of distributing applications. For Windows users switching to Mac OS X, it's not really something they're used to doing. Instead of downloading an installer, clicking "Open" in the browser, and just following a guide leads to less issues with placing the application the correct place (Program Files), instead you get either a Zip file (so the bundle is in Downloads), an actual Installer (typically a .pkg), or a Disk Image which is often never unmounted. (I once saw a family member with 7 Flash Update disk images mounted) As such, a lot of OS X users find themselves with a the Skype app in Desktop (inside a Disk Image), their Mail on the dock and some other app in Documents or Downloads. It requires that you organise it yourself.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
    > It requires that you organise it yourself. Another way of saying it is that it lets you organize it yourself. There will always be people who don't understand, or care to understand, how the system works. You can put in all the hand-holdy nonsense you want to cater to them and they'll still exist, but you'll be adding tedious and unnecessary hurdles in the workflow of people who do know what's going on.