5 ms·

And how is that use-case unsupported on virtually all other operating systems? One of the nice things (again, IMHO) of the Windows concept (and Linux, and BeOS

And how is that use-case unsupported on virtually all other operating systems? One of the nice things (again, IMHO) of the Windows concept (and Linux, and BeOS and <insert any other modern OS> for the most part) is that just because you happen to have a window in focus doesn't mean that the principle OS menus need to completely reconfigure themselves for that one app. The functions of the thing you are working on are supposed to carry around with that object. Under any other possible metaphor, what the Macintosh operating systems have done is madness. >In the physical world, I mix and match media as suits the task, and the Mac mimics that. I don't fill my desk up with a notepad, then hide it and take out a calculator, then hide it and set up my easel. This is the wrong metaphor. The metaphor Apple is using is like separating the pedals, gear shifter and steering wheel from your car, the doorknobs from your house and your office, and all the buttons from your calculator and throwing them into a toolchest that you have to carry around with you everywhere. Whenever you encounter something you need to operate, you open the appropriate drawer in the chest and operate it from there. Need to go get some beer at the convenience store? Open the 3rd drawer and drive your car from inside the drawer. Need to get in your house? Open the doorknob drawer and turn the right one clockwise so your door pops open. Need to use your calculator that you have out? That's the fifth drawer down on the right. Try not to make a mistake while bending down hitting keys, and then bending back up to see if the display on the calc is showing you something you want. Of course it's an Apple toolbox so it's all aqua-ish and shiny with rounded corners and a permanent lens-flair, and it's context sensitive so the right drawer "just opens" at the right time so it all appears to "just work". But it's annoying as all hell. The interfaces to the device you are intending to operate should be part of the device you are operating. The Macintosh Operating systems have always operated under the assumption of single app focus reconfiguring the toolbars, with clutter from unfocused apps taking up the visual space. I can't even count on all my fingers and toes the number of times I've closed a window in an Apple operating system, but not the App, and thought I was working with an app that was in the background that just happened to have a very similar toolbar - and got supremely frustrated that I couldn't bring that app in focus or do some operation from within the toolbar for the app I very clearly was looking at (and the only one I could see with windows on the screen. The disassociation of tools (methods) from the thing that you are working on (objects) is not only a poor abstraction, it's a usability nightmare. Right now for example, I have my browser open in one part of my screen, a word processor in another, and two file browsers on another monitor. Nothing in the design of my OS is preventing me from copying and pasting from one to the other, or even dragging and dropping items or selections from one program to another. But my OS isn't trying to reconfigure itself to support whatever app happens to be in focus at the moment. But if I want to avoid distractions from the other apps, I can full screen any one of those things and it really is full screen, I won't see anything else on that monitor but that app. On Apple Operating systems it just sorta kinda fits it as best it can, but if the aspect ratio is not quite right or something I'll see other apps hanging out over the edges of my window.

bonaldi 17y ago
Have you used a Mac more than once? Or have you only ever used OpenDoc or something? I don't mean to be insulting, but nothing you describe happens or has happened in any Mac OS: 1. Mac apps don't have toolbars (save the odd cross-platform exception). App windows can have toolbars, but they remain with the window, so it's impossible for you to close a window and still work with its toolbar as you describe. Likewise: 2. "The Macintosh Operating systems have always operated under the assumption of single app focus reconfiguring the toolbar" can't be true, because there aren't any. The only thing that changes from app to app is the menubar, and floating palettes if there are any. They of course, disappear, so: 3. "with clutter from unfocused apps taking up the visual space." can't be true either. When an app's in the background, only its document or other main windows remain -- and you've already conceded it's important that they be there. All floating palettes and other "clutter" disappears (so you certainly can't be confused that it's the active app and try to use its invisible toolbars, either). If the main windows disappeared too, how would you support drag-and-drop etc? 4. "But my OS isn't trying to reconfigure itself to support whatever app happens to be in focus at the moment." ... and neither is Mac OS. There's no reconfiguration going on. The menubar titles change to accord with the active application, and ancillary palettes -- windows that only make sense when their application is active -- disappear. That's all that happens when an app focus changes. 4b. Which makes "and got supremely frustrated that I couldn't bring that app in focus" bizarre. You clicked on an app's window and it didn't come into focus? Why not? 5. "The disassociation of tools (methods) from the thing that you are working on (objects) is not only a poor abstraction, it's a usability nightmare." ... well, except that this is how we've worked every since our ancestors got tools? The hammer doesn't stick to the nail, or the saw to the piece of wood. Tools aren't associated with the things they're working on. 6. ... well, except in computing, where they are associated, necessarily. If you're working on an image, you're in an image editing app, and the appropriate tools need to be available. When you switch to a text document, they need to go away (as they do on the Mac), and document-editing tools need to be available. 7. All of this adds up to make your toolchest metaphor totally nonsensical. In what way and by what behaviours does Apple's metaphor mix up the buttons from your calculator with the pedals from your car? The only way I can make sense of it is to think that because the calculator is still visible on the screen while you're in another app, you're somehow confused about what you're doing. It's as if you want the OS to only allow you to do one thing at a time. 8. Which would be the full-screen thing. Except that breaks the metaphor again. It's a desktop. You're allowed to have more than one thing on it at a time. You don't push everything off your desk and only have one piece of paper allowed on it at any one time, do you? So why should your computer behave the same way? Especially if you've got a 24" or 30" screen. But, even then, you can just "hide others" and hide the dock, and your window can fill the screen with no other nasty apps insulting your field of view. I'm sorry if we've got here from what you meant to be a throwaway line about the "multi-window aspect" of Macs, but really, unless you're making an argument for having nothing but old-school Windows MDI, it was a daft position to take, unless you've got a huge misconception about how Mac OS window handling works. It's certainly not "almost unusable" because it lets you see other windows -- and you've already conceded it's important to be able to see them, so I'm struggling to get where the "madness" you talk about comes in.

bonaldi 17y ago

Have you used a Mac more than once? Or have you only ever used OpenDoc or something? I don't mean to be insulting, but nothing you describe happens or has happened in any Mac OS: 1. Mac apps don't have toolbars (save the odd cross-platform exception). App windows can have toolbars, but they remain with the window, so it's impossible for you to close a window and still work with its toolbar as you describe. Likewise: 2. "The Macintosh Operating systems have always operated under the assumption of single app focus reconfiguring the toolbar" can't be true, because there aren't any. The only thing that changes from app to app is the menubar, and floating palettes if there are any. They of course, disappear, so: 3. "with clutter from unfocused apps taking up the visual space." can't be true either. When an app's in the background, only its document or other main windows remain -- and you've already conceded it's important that they be there. All floating palettes and other "clutter" disappears (so you certainly can't be confused that it's the active app and try to use its invisible toolbars, either). If the main windows disappeared too, how would you support drag-and-drop etc? 4. "But my OS isn't trying to reconfigure itself to support whatever app happens to be in focus at the moment." ... and neither is Mac OS. There's no reconfiguration going on. The menubar titles change to accord with the active application, and ancillary palettes -- windows that only make sense when their application is active -- disappear. That's all that happens when an app focus changes. 4b. Which makes "and got supremely frustrated that I couldn't bring that app in focus" bizarre. You clicked on an app's window and it didn't come into focus? Why not? 5. "The disassociation of tools (methods) from the thing that you are working on (objects) is not only a poor abstraction, it's a usability nightmare." ... well, except that this is how we've worked every since our ancestors got tools? The hammer doesn't stick to the nail, or the saw to the piece of wood. Tools aren't associated with the things they're working on. 6. ... well, except in computing, where they are associated, necessarily. If you're working on an image, you're in an image editing app, and the appropriate tools need to be available. When you switch to a text document, they need to go away (as they do on the Mac), and document-editing tools need to be available. 7. All of this adds up to make your toolchest metaphor totally nonsensical. In what way and by what behaviours does Apple's metaphor mix up the buttons from your calculator with the pedals from your car? The only way I can make sense of it is to think that because the calculator is still visible on the screen while you're in another app, you're somehow confused about what you're doing. It's as if you want the OS to only allow you to do one thing at a time. 8. Which would be the full-screen thing. Except that breaks the metaphor again. It's a desktop. You're allowed to have more than one thing on it at a time. You don't push everything off your desk and only have one piece of paper allowed on it at any one time, do you? So why should your computer behave the same way? Especially if you've got a 24" or 30" screen. But, even then, you can just "hide others" and hide the dock, and your window can fill the screen with no other nasty apps insulting your field of view. I'm sorry if we've got here from what you meant to be a throwaway line about the "multi-window aspect" of Macs, but really, unless you're making an argument for having nothing but old-school Windows MDI, it was a daft position to take, unless you've got a huge misconception about how Mac OS window handling works. It's certainly not "almost unusable" because it lets you see other windows -- and you've already conceded it's important to be able to see them, so I'm struggling to get where the "madness" you talk about comes in.