5 ms·

I think this comes down to Apple's envisaged window management paradigm being centered around full-screen windows. In Apple's UX view, it seems like you're mea

by g_p 3y ago

I think this comes down to Apple's envisaged window management paradigm being centered around full-screen windows. In Apple's UX view, it seems like you're meant to maximize windows to "spaces", and switch between workspaces using a few gestures (4 finger swipes mainly) to reveal all windows, and swap between workspaces that way. Rectangle, as others have pointed out, give you the "snap" experience you would expect from other OSs.

OJFord 3y ago
Why then the two 'full-ish screen' systems? There's 'spaces' as you say, and also the traffic light button that makes it 'maximised' I suppose. I just don't see why if you'd thought it out, and that's (either of them) the you wanted people to do it, why you'd have both options. And then there's the weird 'close actually closes the window, not the app' (even though for some large percentage of apps the one window is all there ever would be).
- rcarmo 3y ago
  Those are intended as shortcuts for creative apps where you typically need the entire screen real estate. There was precedent for that going back to pre-X macOS, but spaces and full screen windows are a consistent approach at switching contexts in creative apps.
  - D13Fd 3y ago
    The reality is that they had the green maximize buttons originally (although the exact functionality has changed a bit), then tacked on the full screen experience later. It’s not the result of some unified vision, although in practice is works fine IMO.
    - jagged-chisel 3y ago
      The green button was originally “zoom” which, to Apple, meant “adjust this window to its content, or revert to the previous size.” Some apps implemented zoom as maximize, but that was not The Apple Way®. Their full-screen-window-gets-its-own-desktop-space was added later.
arrrg 3y ago
This is such a weird ahistorical view. Overlapping and freely resizable windows is the Mac paradigm. In my estimation they don’t add snapping mostly due to pride. Maximized windows is an intruder. Something that was big on Windows but never really a thing (and just not possible at all) on the Mac at all until a couple of years ago. The implementation of fullscreen mode is clunky and slow. Given that Apple has been throwing different window management paradigms at the Mac (Exposé later retitled Mission Control which was the original new OS X approach, Spaces in different implementations, sticky windows resizing, Stage Manager, full screen mode, full screen mode with split view) it is truly weird that this grab bag does not include snapping windows. And, I still think that is just down to hurt pride and ego.
WWLink 3y ago
lol you couldn't be more wrong. Back in the classic Mac days, Apple was so anti-full-screen-environment that most apps had floating toolbars and the document windows were minimal and freestanding. (ircle and office:mac 2000 or older would be my first examples, but I believe photoshop worked the same). MS did it because.. I think Windows used to only support 1 window per program or something. That's why old versions of Office basically go full screen and each document you open is another 'child window' of the main office window. Same was true for stuff like America Online lol.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  And then in 2010 they came out with macOS 10 and went back on all that.
  - WWLink 3y ago
    MacOS X was still pretty hardcore about not doing fullscreen, for quite a while. The green button used to make the window 'full size' but that often meant like, as big as a 8x11 document in word would be, not full screen. That pissed off a lot of users who expected MacOS to act like Windows. So Apple changed it. Then along came the iPad and Apple went full hog on "1 task at a time" UIs. So full hog that Microsoft had to backstep and do the same with Windows 8 lol. I don't know what Apple is doing anymore lol.
mvdtnz 3y ago
I have a huge screen and a mouse and keyboard. Full screen apps make absolutely no sense for me, and there's no way for me to "4 finger swipe".

by g_p 3y ago

OJFord 3y ago

Why then the two 'full-ish screen' systems? There's 'spaces' as you say, and also the traffic light button that makes it 'maximised' I suppose. I just don't see why if you'd thought it out, and that's (either of them) the you wanted people to do it, why you'd have both options. And then there's the weird 'close actually closes the window, not the app' (even though for some large percentage of apps the one window is all there ever would be).

rcarmo 3y ago
Those are intended as shortcuts for creative apps where you typically need the entire screen real estate. There was precedent for that going back to pre-X macOS, but spaces and full screen windows are a consistent approach at switching contexts in creative apps.
- D13Fd 3y ago
  The reality is that they had the green maximize buttons originally (although the exact functionality has changed a bit), then tacked on the full screen experience later. It’s not the result of some unified vision, although in practice is works fine IMO.
  - jagged-chisel 3y ago
    The green button was originally “zoom” which, to Apple, meant “adjust this window to its content, or revert to the previous size.” Some apps implemented zoom as maximize, but that was not The Apple Way®. Their full-screen-window-gets-its-own-desktop-space was added later.

arrrg 3y ago

This is such a weird ahistorical view. Overlapping and freely resizable windows is the Mac paradigm. In my estimation they don’t add snapping mostly due to pride. Maximized windows is an intruder. Something that was big on Windows but never really a thing (and just not possible at all) on the Mac at all until a couple of years ago. The implementation of fullscreen mode is clunky and slow. Given that Apple has been throwing different window management paradigms at the Mac (Exposé later retitled Mission Control which was the original new OS X approach, Spaces in different implementations, sticky windows resizing, Stage Manager, full screen mode, full screen mode with split view) it is truly weird that this grab bag does not include snapping windows. And, I still think that is just down to hurt pride and ego.

WWLink 3y ago

lol you couldn't be more wrong. Back in the classic Mac days, Apple was so anti-full-screen-environment that most apps had floating toolbars and the document windows were minimal and freestanding. (ircle and office:mac 2000 or older would be my first examples, but I believe photoshop worked the same). MS did it because.. I think Windows used to only support 1 window per program or something. That's why old versions of Office basically go full screen and each document you open is another 'child window' of the main office window. Same was true for stuff like America Online lol.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
And then in 2010 they came out with macOS 10 and went back on all that.
- WWLink 3y ago
  MacOS X was still pretty hardcore about not doing fullscreen, for quite a while. The green button used to make the window 'full size' but that often meant like, as big as a 8x11 document in word would be, not full screen. That pissed off a lot of users who expected MacOS to act like Windows. So Apple changed it. Then along came the iPad and Apple went full hog on "1 task at a time" UIs. So full hog that Microsoft had to backstep and do the same with Windows 8 lol. I don't know what Apple is doing anymore lol.

mvdtnz 3y ago

I have a huge screen and a mouse and keyboard. Full screen apps make absolutely no sense for me, and there's no way for me to "4 finger swipe".