4 ms·

You know what's nice? The 13" (rescaled) 4:3 screen is easier to read than my current setup. Also, the menu's are nice and short. Very focus. I totally understa

You know what's nice? The 13" (rescaled) 4:3 screen is easier to read than my current setup. Also, the menu's are nice and short. Very focus. I totally understand how I, and many people in the past, were able to pump out huge amounts of code in a week

pantulis 5y ago
Other forgotten niceties are the spatial Finder and how double clicking on a window title basically folds the window into just the title bar.
OnlyMortal 5y ago
Menus are supposed to have 7 +/- 2 items. Inside Macintosh Volume 1, if memory serves.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Yes. This matches to what was thought (at the time? I'm not sure if research has changed the thinking on this) to be the size of human working memory. 7 ± 2 was believed to be about how much a human could understand with zero layers of abstraction, i.e. "in parallel" (you can imagine your brain has 7 ± 2 registers, though that's a highly inaccurate model). Any larger, and your brain has to build abstractions to reference the item (i.e. item 10 becomes "the last item in the second half of that honkin' huge menu").
  - jasomill 5y ago
    As opposed to "nested two levels deep under one item or another on the File…or was it View…or maybe Window…menu? No? Okay, then try holding down Option…" I still think that searchable menus was one of the killer features of OS X vs. anything else at the time, and it's frankly amazing that the majority of Windows apps still don't have menu search.
    - jbverschoor 5y ago
      This is the some reason I use raycast. I mapped search menu to a global hot key
- mypalmike 5y ago
  Inside Macintosh. What a great set of volumes. I'd forgotten about them.
projektfu 5y ago
Menus were short because they had to fit on the screen of a classic Mac (342 pixels) and the pull-down operation used to require holding the mouse button. I think by Mac OS 8 you could click to open a menu and yhey could probably expect at least 480 pixels if not 600.

pantulis 5y ago

Other forgotten niceties are the spatial Finder and how double clicking on a window title basically folds the window into just the title bar.

OnlyMortal 5y ago

Menus are supposed to have 7 +/- 2 items. Inside Macintosh Volume 1, if memory serves.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Yes. This matches to what was thought (at the time? I'm not sure if research has changed the thinking on this) to be the size of human working memory. 7 ± 2 was believed to be about how much a human could understand with zero layers of abstraction, i.e. "in parallel" (you can imagine your brain has 7 ± 2 registers, though that's a highly inaccurate model). Any larger, and your brain has to build abstractions to reference the item (i.e. item 10 becomes "the last item in the second half of that honkin' huge menu").
- jasomill 5y ago
  As opposed to "nested two levels deep under one item or another on the File…or was it View…or maybe Window…menu? No? Okay, then try holding down Option…" I still think that searchable menus was one of the killer features of OS X vs. anything else at the time, and it's frankly amazing that the majority of Windows apps still don't have menu search.
  - jbverschoor 5y ago
    This is the some reason I use raycast. I mapped search menu to a global hot key
mypalmike 5y ago
Inside Macintosh. What a great set of volumes. I'd forgotten about them.

projektfu 5y ago

Menus were short because they had to fit on the screen of a classic Mac (342 pixels) and the pull-down operation used to require holding the mouse button. I think by Mac OS 8 you could click to open a menu and yhey could probably expect at least 480 pixels if not 600.