What Windows Features Do You Want In OS X? - Page 2

1) Dali got to it before I could -- resizing windows from any edge or corner! I especially like that by grabbing a window by an edge rather than a corner that you can ensure that you only change the window's size in one dimension.

2) Being able to save state when switching from one user to another... Is this what the rest of you mean by multi-user sessions?

3) Interactive menus, like the Start menu or IE's Favorites, where you can click, drag, delete, sort, get info, etc., on items in the menu.

I find it very convenient, for instance, if I click on Favorites to go to one bookmark, and notice an old bookmark that I'd like to get rid of, I can do it right then and there by interacting with the menu itself rather than aborting the menu and going into a separate window/dialog to edit my bookmarks.

4) OS X's file Open/Save dialogs certainly need improvement. I'm not sure how much of from Windows I'd borrow from here, but like others have mentioned, being able to get file info and edit and copy file names is very useful. Also being able to change sort order and view style is nice... right from a file dialog being able to sort by date, for instance.

5) Ability to point at a file and see a tooltip pop up with basic file info.

6) For geeks only: Windows-like shortcuts that can specify command-line commands, along with an optional home directory. This would be a useful way to easily turn commonly used command-line tasks into double-clickable icons.

[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: shetline ]</p>

I'm sorry, but half of the "features" you guys describe are never gonna happen. Active desktop and stuff like that-yes, but cluttering menus with hardly-ever-used options and resizing windows from all over the place just isnt the apple philosophy. Those are things they coulda done long ago but decided not to.

I agree with the speed thing, but its a necessary sacrifice for a micro kernal based OS rather than macro. This however enhances security and stability. Most of the speed difference is to be blamed on the hardware, though.
And even though i agree that macs aren't as fast, i gotta tell you that i could almost care less. Speed doesnt mean nearly as much to me as it used to.

My one wish: Lets see if they can bring 3D sound native to the mac, ASAP

I should add this to my first post:

I'd like it if they could do something like Active Desktop... only much better.

That last qualifier seems to pop up a lot when i'm talking about Windows.

[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by shetline:
<strong>
...

2) Being able to save state when switching from one user to another... Is this what the rest of you mean by multi-user sessions?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes. And I would like to add my vote for this feature.

[quote]
<strong>

6) For geeks only: Windows-like shortcuts that can specify command-line commands, along with an optional home directory. This would be a useful way to easily turn commonly used command-line tasks into double-clickable icons.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>

I am pretty sure you can do this already. Try taking any shell script and adding .command to it. Not that I have really tried this.

[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: JBL ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>I can understand ditching the open dialog, but how would you be able to ditch the save dialog? It's one thing if your work is saved as you go, but if you change your mind, you're kind of screwed, aren't you?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not if the file system's journaled.

I'm not actually thinking in those terms, though. It would have to involve something like a Shelf to hold the file while you navigated to the place you wanted to save it. Finder could then tell the application where you ended up placing the file, so the next time it could just tell Finder to save file 'x' to path 'y'.

In other words, Finder would have to change slightly. But I'd much rather that than anything like Windows undersized and overdetermined file dialogs. As it is, I far prefer OS X's - glitches and all.

Whatever number of "ayes" for Multi-User Sessions were already submitted, let me add mine to the tally. I'd like nothing more than the ability for my mom to quickly log out so my brother could check his email on his account without having to quit whatever documents she's working on.

[quote]I agree with the speed thing, but its a necessary sacrifice for a micro kernal based OS rather than macro.<hr></blockquote>Speed issue is lack of optimised code rather than the kernel. Darwin xnu is not strictly a micro kernel.

[quote]Originally posted by Dali:
<strong>
- 2) Active Desktop (but better) - I want my desktop image to be my "homepage" or my "email client" or my "default finder window", or "ALL OF THEM" at the same time with a powerful interface to customize it and resize (of course) the components within it! I truley believe it is time to utilize this space with functionality, not just an image, what a waste! Imagine having all the Apple apps integrated into the actual desktop image iCal, iChat, Safari, iSync, Mail, AddressBook, iTunes! - That would be - Innovation!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Or an astonishing amount of clutter.

You can have all of them at once simply by opening them, and if you do that then they can even take up far more space than they could if they were all painting their views onto the desktop.

[quote]<strong>- 3) Safari / iApp Integration - I know it is a beta, but would be great for Safari to be able to read iApp documents and the file types exported from iApps. Windows does this well, PowerPoint, Excel, Word, etc can all be read by IE. For example - Imagine if Safari could control iTunes? You could control all aspects of of iTunes from within the interface of Safari, ONE APP open. I would imagine this would similar to the bookmark button, takes over the entire Safari interface to display iTunes, or iTunes equavilent. Can you Imagine more of this type of Integration, I can Safari opens up a lot of integration possabilities - Think AOL, Think MSN, next gen web experience </strong><hr></blockquote>

Gods, no. This "one app that does everything!" just leads to bloat. IE's predilection for embedding or launching other applications annoys me to no end. If I drop a file into an IE window, it's because I want IE to open it. If I want Word (which I almost never do), I know where to find it.

How could Safari do iTunes any better than iTunes can? Why should it try, when iTunes is right there? What concrete, practical advantage is there to having one app be a proxy for everything? The information will still take up enough space that you'll have to spawn multiple windows to take it all in, and at that point you might as well run multiple applications whose windows and menus are designed specifically for the content they're displaying. Apple's going the right way here by making the apps aware of each other and able to talk to each other easily, without trying to stuff them all into one app/window.

[quote]<strong>- 4) Internet Access (see point 3) - I know people are questioning Apple for their diversification, too many businesses. However, follow the logic. To answer the question, "What Windows features would you like in OSX?", needs to be expanded to "What Microsoft features would you like to see in Apple?" I would Apple to expand to at least one more business - Internet Access. They are almost their, actually. They need to buy Earthlink at their deflated stock price and get on it. Imagine what Apple could do if they owned the entire Internet/Computer/Creation Process....? My god the possibilities are endless, and could if done effectibely and in innovative ways... actually EXPAND AND GAIN MARKETSHARE! Thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't see where the innovation lies in handling this area, since internet access mostly involves setting up a passive way to forward content, and praying that you can eke out a razor-thin profit margin while you're at it. By providing the machines and some destinations and services under the .Mac umbrella, Apple is punting a large and thankless task to other companies, and letting people choose whatever connection solution works best for them.

AOL and MSN might be useful for hand-holding, but they also imply a certain level of gatekeeping and coercion. I prefer Apple's way: Tailored applications such as Sherlock and Safari's Google search that exploit the open web, and services based upon open standards that are available regardless of who you connect from, or how. I firmly believe that Apple can make the Internet friendly - even transparent to a large degree - without locking people into a centralized, proprietary service.

MS is only doing MSN because Gates' strategies almost always involve engaging competitors head to head, and since MSN's competitor is AOL, MSN looks and acts like AOL. Apple, on the other hand, is stepping back and looking at the problem of making the 'net friendly, convenient and accessible, without paying much regard to whether some top-heavy conglomerate has come up with a particular answer to that problem.

[quote]<strong>- 5) And yes, better network usability
That's about it for now I guess - Please feel free to give your opinion - the good, the bad, and the ugly </strong><hr></blockquote>

I have no complaints about OS X's networking - it's been, on the whole, much easier even than OS 9 for me. But then, I haven't tried getting on to a Windows network. If that process doesn't have the simplicity and reliability that it should (and I hear that it doesn't) then yes, it should absolutely improve. I will bring a Mac to work one of these days, and I would just love to make signing into the thrice-cursed Active Directory look easy. Jaws would drop all through the office.

[quote] My Wish List - by priority....

- 1) Resize window from ANYWHERE! Apple practically invented the GUI, and I have to resize my windows from one TINY corner!! No friggin way, I can NOT believe this has not been mentioned, and we don't have it ALREADY! Please chime-in and add your support, so SOMEONE DOES SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!!!! (yes that pissed off!) <hr></blockquote>

I almost cried when I saw that... I couldn't finish the thread. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does it annoy anyone else when you go to drag a window by its border in Windows and it starts resizing? Derrr... However Apple became retarded, in OS X you can't resized OR move windows by their borders, wasted opportunity. In my opinion they could get two birds with one stone: in 10.3 you can drag a window by its borders, however if you option-click you can resize a window by its borders. What do you say Apple? Also I took me a long time to figure out Drawers, the only way to get rid of them is to drag the border, no widget. However the border is thinner than paper..they need thicker borders or a widget.

Speed of OS X? What kind of computers are you people using? 10.2.3 is fine on my iBook and I'm sure it'll be better than 9 on my baby 12" PB. Buy more RAM. And boot speed? Why would you reboot OS X unless you're adding haxies or updates? OS X now has polish, it's time for another round of interface revising and feature addition. Except for networking. Gah, that crashes OS X still and the Connect dialogue box is pathetic.

Oh and don't forget Solitaire and MineSweeper...

[quote]Originally posted by JBL:
<strong>I am pretty sure you can do this already. Try taking any shell script and adding .command to it. Not that I have really tried this.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just clarifying on this.

I just tried it, and you are right - that works. A text file with ".command" as the file-extension will open up Terminal.app and be executed upon being double-clicked.

What I normally do though is open Script Editor and type this:

do shell script "~/pathtosomeshellscript.txt"

Which, when saved as a run-only script won't open Terminal.app to run the script (it'll open an applescript - but that will close as soon as it is finished, unlike Terminal.app)

[quote]Originally posted by Nevyn:
<strong>

What I normally do though is open Script Editor and type this:

do shell script "~/pathtosomeshellscript.txt"

Which, when saved as a run-only script won't open Terminal.app to run the script (it'll open an applescript - but that will close as soon as it is finished, unlike Terminal.app)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why doesn't the Terminal window close after the script is run? I use the inspector to set the shell to close window if the shell exits cleanly and I set this as the default. Still the window doesn't close.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[quote]Originally posted by JBL:
<strong>Why doesn't the Terminal window close after ...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have no idea. That's why I stick to AppleScripting it

I like the thread, but I don't know what I would like from Windows (or Microsoft).
I run 10.2.3 on a Beige G3@266, isn't that just... brave? and I love it, faster than any other previous version (sure, not like 9, but I barely remember 9, hehe!).

[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: transistor ]</p>

Really, just the ability to switch user instead of logging all the way out.

[quote]Originally posted by stunned:
<strong>Networking.

Window's network neighbourhood is much more user-friendly than Apple's connect to server option...</strong><hr></blockquote>I wholeheartedly agree. This is probably one of about three problems with OS X. Why are the network volumes showing up under that "Network" blue globe-thing you get when you open a new Finder window? That would be so cool if that would be the "Network Neighborhood," so to speak.

A feature that I'd like to see (I'm not sure whether it's on Windows already) is when you minimize a window to the dock, it would minimize into the Application that created it. When you click on the Application in the dock you choose the window you want to work with. I would also like to be able to close windows I've minimized to the dock.

[quote]Originally posted by iCode:
<strong>How about allowing Unix type users to get rid of the "system" menu at the top of the screen, or at a minimum allow the application's menu to be attached to the main window of the application.</strong><hr></blockquote>NO F'ng WAY!!! This is one of the best features of the Mac OS -- and why it's so easy to learn and be productive. The menu bar is always at the top of the screen on a Mac. There's no effort in going to "File," "Edit," "Format," whatever...they are in the same place all the time! With Windows, the menu is housed with the application and the window running it, which, for all intents and purposes, could be in the middle of the screen on one application and at another level of the screen another time. That's just a bad GUI in my opinion. It lacks consistency and is counter-productive.

[quote]Originally posted by Dali:
<strong>Safari / iApp Integration - I know it is a beta, but would be great for Safari to be able to read iApp documents and the file types exported from iApps.</strong><hr></blockquote>I think it would be even better if the Safari app was actually built into the Finder, like HTML is built-into Sherlock. New Finder window brings you up the same screen as it does now, but you could type in a web address and go online from the same window, or type in a search for something on your hard drive or on Google. I bet we may start to see this in 10.3.

[quote]Originally posted by JBL:
<strong>

Why doesn't the Terminal window close after the script is run?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Add "logout" as last command and that should work too.

[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>

You just don't get it...

I like the fact that I can open, rename, delete, copy, cut, send, and view the properties of folders and files in Windows. I don't like this idea that the very same folders and files are unatainable at all in OS X! They are my files and I should do with them what I will...not have a "pane of glass" preventing me from them.

And of course the menu in OS X would look the same as the one would see if one control/right clicked on anything on the desktop.

Get over your Windows adversions...some of the features Windows has are good.</strong><hr></blockquote>

ive used windows for the past 10 years I think thats enough experience to know whats bad about it

[quote]Originally posted by Dali:
<strong>My Wish List - by priority....

- 1) Resize window from ANYWHERE! Apple practically invented the GUI, and I have to resize my windows from one TINY corner!! No friggin way, I can NOT believe this has not been mentioned, and we don't have it ALREADY! Please chime-in and add your support, so SOMEONE DOES SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!!!! (yes that pissed off!)


tom</strong><hr></blockquote>


NOOOO! Please NO! I really hate that, both in windows and GNOME. Do bring back draggable window borders for moving, though. At least as an option.
Why not have both? ctrl-click on the border for resize or something, would be nice.

OOOPS! Didn't see there was a hwole extra page to this thread! Quite a few people already commented on this <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: LowB-ing ]</p>

[quote]I think it would be even better if the Safari app was actually built into the Finder, like HTML is built-into Sherlock. New Finder window brings you up the same screen as it does now, but you could type in a web address and go online from the same window, or type in a search for something on your hard drive or on Google. I bet we may start to see this in 10.3.<hr></blockquote>Yeah at about the same time the Windows development team takes over coding 10.3. No no no. Stupid UI tricks belong on Letterman not OSX.

I would realy like the right click menu, or something similar. But what I want more, although it's not in windows, is snap. All you Autocad users know what I am talking about. I want some sort of a snap or osnap that I can turn on and off. You all may think I'm crazy, but I think that would be a helpful feature.

I hope and pray (and strongly suspect) that Apple will not use a browser metaphor for the finder. One is about browsing, and one is about finding, two very different experiences IMO. Sort of like the difference between Safari and Sherlock.

By right click menus, do you mean contextual menus? OS X has context menus either with a third-party two button mouse or by holding down the control key and clicking. I don't see how snaps would help that much on a system-wide level. One of the things that always throws me off, but maybe because it's exceptional behavior at this point, is when in windows a dialog pops up and the cursor jumps to the "OK" button. This is what i imagine when you say "snaps." I've turned this off wherever I can but our print tracking software does this anyway. Instead of just clicking, I start to mouse down from where I know my cursor was, only to see that I'm mousing away from the dialog. Besides, I could just use the keyboard anyway.

Actually, this might be heretical, but with all these Cocoa apps are making better use of context menus, I wouldn't object to another mouse button and/or scroll wheel. I don't miss them too much since I tend to mouse a lot and I always have my left hand on my keyboard, but it might be a little more convenient.

PS: I despise AutoCAD.

[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>

the only windows features I want to see on a mac are:

1) 3D Studio Max and SoftImage ported to OSX
2) the absence of a CLI

[ 01-19-2003: Message edited by: spooky ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by xterra48:
<strong>I would realy like the right click menu, or something similar.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Contextual menus? OS X has that.

PPS: I despise 3D Studio MAX too.

Well, Windows can keep Max and Xsi for all I care. But I'd like to see them arrive for the strength and growth for the 'X' platform. I also want my 'X' copy of Poser 5. Hurry up Curious Labs!!!!!!

I would like to see Apple do more themes. Unlike the tak ones in Windows, I think 'Keynote' shows Apple could come up with some wizzy stuff.

Bring on the 'skins'/Themes already.

Lemon Bon BOn

[ 01-19-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>

i want the ability to run the 9700 all-in-wonder, and the Nvidia FX, and AMD processors, and last but not least security holes, and lack of privacy...i want apple to know what kind of dvd's i watch!

Hey!

Here's a killer feature that windows has that mac hasn't incorporated!

Cut a file and paste it somewhere else to move the file elsewhere. This is one of the most convenient features available!
Apple has already implemented the copy feature but if I want to simply move a file or a bunch of files, copy is useless.

What do you guys think?

Also,

I noticed in windows that the size of the files are actually written down in the database for that file so when I click on the file, I immedately know the size.

In osx, I have to sometimes wait for ages before the size of a file is calculated.

I want that feature now.

[quote]Originally posted by sushiism:
<strong>
ive used windows for the past 10 years I think thats enough experience to know whats bad about it</strong><hr></blockquote>

I too. And I only in the past four years have had a Mac OS as my only OS at home. Almost all my jobs outside of home have been with Windows of all disgusting flavors. I hate Windows with a passion...but I hate Apple's restrictive access to my files. I didn't like it in prior OS's and I would like more access to them in the future as others have stated pretty strongly...and OS X is still in it's birth stages.

We'll see...just make it an option!

[quote]Originally posted by stevegongrui:
<strong>Cut a file and paste it somewhere else to move the file elsewhere.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple won't do it because it's potentially destructive. Only if there's a more flexible pasteboard that allows mulitple user cuts/copies and/or a more versatile means of viewing and tracking the pasteboard contents would make this possible.

[edit: and these would be a Good Idea.(tm)]

[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>

Apple won't do it because it's potentially destructive. Only if there's a more flexible pasteboard that allows mulitple user cuts/copies and/or a more versatile means of viewing and tracking the pasteboard contents would make this possible.

[edit: and these would be a Good Idea.(tm)]

[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Still, a good idea. I like the idea of copy/cutting and pasting files wherever you like. Very intuitive.
Why is it potentially destructive ?

You could accidentally cut something else to the pasteboard, thereby erasing the file, because in the process of cutting the file (as opposed to copying) to the pasteboard, it's the only place the file now exists.

[clarity]

[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>You could accidentally cut something else to the pasteboard, thereby erasing the file, because in the process of cutting the file (as opposed to copying) to the pasteboard, it's the only place the file now exists.

[clarity]

[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

hah i can honestly see ALOT of people doing this...perhaps taht is how .dll's go missing from windows computeres

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

I want the dock fixed. In particular, I wish it fit all the way across the bottom of the screen whether or not if was full of items and I also want windows of open apps to behave with the dock as they do with the top menubar.

The way the dock sits now, if its not full, it wastes screen space. Who sizes windows so that they make use of the space between either of the dock edges and screen edge? Nobody. The dock should just sit at the bottom like the top menubar sits at the top and out of the way of open app windows.

[quote]Originally posted by sc_markt:
<strong>I want the dock fixed. In particular, I wish it fit all the way across the bottom of the screen whether or not if was full of items and I also want windows of open apps to behave with the dock as they do with the top menubar.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Dock doesn't extend to the edges of the screen for this reason: if a non-Dock-savvy app (including all Classic apps) places it a full-size window under the Dock, how else are you going to get to the resize widget in the lower left-hand corner?

As for handling windows, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Docked apps do list open windows in their Dock menus -- just control or press-click.

[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:
<strong>

The Dock doesn't extend to the edges of the screen for this reason: if a non-Dock-savvy app (including all Classic apps) places it a full-size window under the Dock, how else are you going to get to the resize widget in the lower left-hand corner? </strong><hr></blockquote>

When you full screen the window, why does it have to go under the dock? In classic, when I hit the full screen button, the window apps butts up against the bottom edge of the top menubar. It does not put it under the top menubar. It just seems to me that when you hit that re-size button, it should fit it against the bottom edge of the top menubar AND the top edge of the dock (if it was sitting all the way across the bottom of the screen).

[quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:
<strong>
As for handling windows, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Docked apps do list open windows in their Dock menus -- just control or press-click.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, in classic, when you auto resize a finder window (with lots of items in it) or an app window such as mozilla, the app window is never put behind the top menubar. Why can't auto resize work the same way for the dock?

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>You could accidentally cut something else to the pasteboard, thereby erasing the file, because in the process of cutting the file (as opposed to copying) to the pasteboard, it's the only place the file now exists.
[clarity]
]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ok. They should leave the cutting out then. Just keep copy/paste for us fools.

[quote]Originally posted by BigBlue:
<strong>Ok. They should leave the cutting out then. Just keep copy/paste for us fools. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Uh, don't take that personally, I'm just pointing out the pitfalls of using the cut command with files. You don't have to be stupid. Everyone can be careless now and then, and accidents do happen to even the most expert among us.

[quote]Originally posted by sc_markt:
<strong>It just seems to me that when you hit that re-size button, it should fit it against the bottom edge of the top menubar AND the top edge of the dock (if it was sitting all the way across the bottom of the screen).</strong><hr></blockquote>

In theory, that's how it should work. In practice, developers (especially Carbon developers) have write their apps to be Dock-aware. And Classic apps, AFAIK, simply can't be Dock-aware.

Finally, windows can still end up behind the Dock: try hiding the Dock, moving a window to the bottom of the screen, then unhiding. This is intentional Apple's part; I think it makes sense. The Dock is flexible enough to allow windows to be placed behind it. It's a different widget than the Windows Taskbar; likewise, it has a significantly different behavior.

So that space between screen edge and Dock is Apple's compromise for usability. As compromises go, I've seen worse.

[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Aquatic:
<strong>
Does it annoy anyone else when you go to drag a window by its border in Windows and it starts resizing? Derrr... However Apple became retarded, in OS X you can't resized OR move windows by their borders, wasted opportunity. In my opinion they could get two birds with one stone: in 10.3 you can drag a window by its borders, however if you option-click you can resize a window by its borders. What do you say Apple?
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>

Ummm... OS X windows don't have borders. Although maybe if you held down option within 5px of the border you could resize it. I don't know about moving the window though. I especially hate how in brushed metal apps if I accidentally click in the wrong place I end up draggin the window.

-Chris

[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: amitofu ]</p>