What Windows Features Do You Want In OS X? - Page 3

[quote]Originally posted by amitofu:
<strong>

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.</strong><hr></blockquote> Do you realize how inconsistant this kind of behavior is? You click in a magical area, and it resizes. What if I wanted the window behind it...I clicked there didn't I... What if I wanted the scroll bar...I clicked it didn't I.

This entire thread is extremely discouraging (with a few exceptions, of course). If everyone likes the clutter and mess of windows then use windows. I'm not personally hurt if you decide to change. Just don't force your clutter on me. And this "just make it an option" doesn't quite cut it, either. Really, the beauty of OS X is the consistancy of behavior. The more options you add, the more inconsistant the OS is. Contextual menus on Menubar menus??? How awfully strange and confusing is that? And making open/save windows extremely complex? Really, we don't need all that. I agree that in the beginning OS X's open/save file panes weren't all that great, but they have gotten better. It does what is says it will...save and open. It doesn't claim to do more and can be cluttered if it does (just look at that windows save dialog box - I don't want to see that when all I want to do is save my file). And this clipboard-like-pane for moving files doesn't seem very necessary either. Just use the desktop - that's why it's there, and the stuff that's left there at the end of the day is in a consistant location ~/Desktop/. The cut command was conciously left out...and for good reason. The 'edit' commands shouldn't be used for files to begin with. It's for text editing, and not for file manipulation, so the analogy doesn't work quite as well. Copy and pasting a file doesn't quite ring as true as text (although windows has used this analogy, and so now it's a standard computer analogy, even though it makes no sense.) And this All in One concept of an app?!? We have something that works, and works well. Why half-ass it elsewhere. How much more confusing can you get than having iTunes within Safari? but it's iTunes, and the app is Safari! Let's ditch the finder and use Safari to navigate to our files. @#$%.

/rant Sorry

Some features that would help is better FTP, better "connect-to-server" type thing, and a windowshade-type minimization (I know there is a haxie, but it should be integrated with the finder). More contextual menu options would also be nice, or an easy way to add our own (a la OS 9).

[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>

No, in windows it does not work like this. The computer doesn't do anything other than keep track of the file's location until you paste and it does nothing until the entire content has been moved successfully.

The file doesn't dissapear when you do cut nor is it totally moved onto the clipboard.

If you don't decide to paste it, the file will still be at the same place.

Even if your computer crashes, nothing will happen.


So, sorry, but I still don't understand what you mean by it being dangerous.

[quote]Originally posted by stevegongrui:
<strong>The file doesn't dissapear when you do cut nor is it totally moved onto the clipboard.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then it's not a true "cut" behavior and is inconsistent with "cut" in every other context. I'm assuming you treat files, text, images, everything in the same way. That's what I hate about windows. The same commands do different things in different apps and contexts. If it doesn't work like cut, then they shouldn't call it that. It would be more intelligent to create a "move" command where you can paste an item to the clipboard in the manner you described, leaving the original intact until you pasted it somewhere else in the filesystem, than to call it something it isn't.

Yes, and if you use the cut command on a file, it should just make it invisible but keep it where it originally was. When you press paste, it moves the file. If you accidentally copy or cut something else, pushing the original out, it should return it to its original spot.

See, there should be something easy like that that is still safe. I don't want to have to copy something, paste it somewhere else, and then find the original to delete it. It's like how stuffit expander leaves .sit files on my desktop... I just went into expander's prefs and told it to delete the compressed files after expanding them. There should be something like that in finder, akin to "always open folders in new windows."

I agree with you completely, bauman. I think that too much of what software developers do is create features that help a few users at the expense of hurting many more users.

this brings to mind a phrase I've heard about interfacce design that "simple things should be easy and complicated things should be possible." Apple can add robust copy/cut/paste file featuresm and it will make a complicated task easy but now the easy tasks are difficult. That doesn't make any sense.

Apple is great at making things easy yet powerful. Take Safaari vs. all other web browsers for example. Where other browsers may have complex appearance preferences Safari has a simple, logical, style sheet option. It may not be as easy to do complicated stuff as with dedicated appearance controls but it is certainly possible to have powerful control over the way your browser renders web pages. At the same time it is still easy to comprehend the browser's functionality.

I think this is a fundamental paradigm to Apple's design and i know it is why I can only tolerate using a Mac.

-Chris

[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>

That seems trivial to handle, but I think we are on to something.

Here's how I would handle it, and then I'll describe why it may not work... I think both Copy and Paste would be trivial to implement. The only issue would be how to "non-destructively" cut something and the answer is "move it to the trash" and also place it on the clipboard. Then, if you accidently use the clipboard for something else, or if your computer crashes, you can still retrieve the file.

Now, why that doesn't work. When you connect to network drives, moving an item to the trash doesn't actually put it into your trash. Instead, it actually deletes the file. (The OS provides a nice warning about this, though). If the mechanism that I prescribed were to be used, you could potentially lose a lot of network files that way. My guess is that Apple has some network connectivity cleanup to do, and when that's finished, we may get cut/paste actions on files. (Just a guess, though)

[quote] I have no complaints about OS X's networking - it's been, on the whole, much easier even than OS 9 for me.<hr></blockquote>

I have found absolutely nothing consistent with OSX's networking.

For instance:
1.) I can share a USB printer on a Mac w/OSX with my PCs, but I cannot share the same printer with my other OSX machines. :confused:

2.) Depending on which of my Macs I use, I can either easily connect to my PCs, or I have to use smb://xxx.xxx.xxx.xx. Which I hate

I shouldn't have to do a voodoo dance. It shouldn't be that difficult , nothing should be that difficult. I have since given up hope that I will ever get my network to work correctly.

[quote]Originally posted by therig:
<strong>

I have found absolutely nothing consistent with OSX's networking.

For instance:
1.) I can share a USB printer on a Mac w/OSX with my PCs, but I cannot share the same printer with my other OSX machines. :confused:

2.) Depending on which of my Macs I use, I can either easily connect to my PCs, or I have to use smb://xxx.xxx.xxx.xx. Which I hate

I shouldn't have to do a voodoo dance. It shouldn't be that difficult , nothing should be that difficult. I have since given up hope that I will ever get my network to work correctly.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I completely agree. Networking on the Mac has a _LONG_ way to go, which seems kind of silly since it is something that has been handled for so well and for so long by other operating systems.

My complaints:
1) When I connect to a network drive and then switch to another network (something that occurs frequently with my laptop), the OS won't let me unmount the old system and remount it on the new network.

2) If I mount a network drive and then log out without unmounting the drive, it causes huge problems if somebody else logs into the box.

3) There is no easy way to have a drive be mounted when I log in. Yes, I've seen the "place the drive into your login items", but that doesn't work for SMB drives.

4) I like to password protect my webDAV servers. The only webDAV server that Mac OSX will remember the password for, is the iDisk (.mac) server. This makes it a huge annoyance to automatically mount my webDAV server (unless I try to trick the mac into thinking that my home servers are actually the iDisk)

5) Anytime I do a software upgrade, I better hope I don't have my network drives mounted, because the stupid "optimizing system" check actually searchs all of my drives. Searching my 100GB network drive takes forever.

Now, let's compare this with Windows... I click on "Map Network Drive", provide the details of where the drive is, and I'm given a choice that says "Mount this drive at startup?". Clicking that automatically mounts the drive for me at startup (duh). Also, when my network connection closes, it automatically unmounts the drive for me and it remounts it when I regain my network connection.

With the amount of hangups I have on my Mac System, I have basically given up trying to mount a network drive and instead I ssh into the server directly to do work.

In fairness, perhaps 10.2.3 is better. To be honest, I have given up hope a while ago because I hate having my computer freeze, do a forced reboot and then wait the 20 minutes while the fsck happens.

some of these ideas are good, but they make some terrible UI concepts when you think deeper about them. I'll give my thoughts on the Finder Copy/Paste/Cut issue here... [quote]Originally posted by Brian Paulsen:
<strong>Here's how I would handle it, and then I'll describe why it may not work... I think both Copy and Paste would be trivial to implement.</strong><hr></blockquote>I think you guys are overlooking a very important point. By making this command so complicated with hiding/unhiding files and so on, you are breaking the basic meaning of the Copy/Cut/Paste tools. Cut by its very nature SHOULD be destructive. It has been that way since it started being used in the early 80s. Making the Finder behave differently makes this tool inconsistent with how it works in every single app. That is a Bad Thing (TM).

Rather than have to either make a special case for Cut in the Finder or allow the "correct" destructive behavior of Cut, if it is to have this full behavior, the Finder should implement some *new* menu items with different (but similar) names in the File menu. That would immediately make it visible to the user that this is not the standard Cut menu item that he has grown to know from all the other apps.

I read a good article about this some time ago... I'll see if Google can bring it up...

edit: here, read this:
<a href="http://mackido.com/Interface/CopyMore.html" target="_blank">http://mackido.com/Interface/CopyMore.html</a>

[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>

read NTFS disks. please.

[quote]Originally posted by Brad:
<strong>some of these ideas are good, but they make some terrible UI concepts when you think deeper about them. I'll give my thoughts on the Finder Copy/Paste/Cut issue here... I think you guys are overlooking a very important point. By making this command so complicated with hiding/unhiding files and so on, you are breaking the basic meaning of the Copy/Cut/Paste tools. Cut by its very nature SHOULD be destructive. It has been that way since it started being used in the early 80s. Making the Finder behave differently makes this tool inconsistent with how it works in every single app. That is a Bad Thing (TM).

Rather than have to either make a special case for Cut in the Finder or allow the "correct" destructive behavior of Cut, if it is to have this full behavior, the Finder should implement some *new* menu items with different (but similar) names in the File menu. That would immediately make it visible to the user that this is not the standard Cut menu item that he has grown to know from all the other apps.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>

I agree with your earlier statement. Cut/Copy/Paste should work just like everything else does. (Make sure that Undo also works on these operations)

I'm not sure how arguing that we need special operations for files make a better UI design. Let me make sure that I have it right though.

"Copy" lets you copy things. Oh, do you want to copy a "file"? Well, that's a different copy command. Do you want to move a file, well that's a different "Cut" command. Oh, and by the way, the normal "Copy" and "Cut" commands don't work on files and the "File Copy" and "File Cut" commands don't work on anything else. If we find a couple of other things that have the same issues, then we are going to have a huge menu of slightly different Copy/Cut/Paste commands.

<strong>
[quote]
I read a good article about this some time ago... I'll see if Google can bring it up...

edit: here, read this:
<a href="http://mackido.com/Interface/CopyMore.html" target="_blank">http://mackido.com/Interface/CopyMore.html</a>

[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: Brad ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's an interesting article that makes some valid points. However, it is fairly weak in the Copy/Paste argument. Here's what I got out of it:

1) Macs can do Copy/Paste if you download some program that does it (so what? I want something supported natively as I can do anything if I install software to do it)

2) The average user who copies/pastes files must be really stupid as they tend to forget what they copied and then we get unknown stuff on the clipboard. Somehow though, they are smart enough to use copy/paste for every other activity, but not when they use it for files.

When the author mentions troubles about Cut/Paste, then he has some very valid points abouts failings of Windows. However, he never really explains why he thinks it's a bad UI, he just points out that Windows does it wrong.

Actually, many of the arguments in his article are so biased towards the Apple way of doing things, it's hard to tell if he's just trying to slam Windows or if he really believes that the Apple way is correct.

[quote]Originally posted by Brian Paulsen:
<strong>Actually, many of the arguments in his article are so biased towards the Apple way of doing things, it's hard to tell if he's just trying to slam Windows or if he really believes that the Apple way is correct.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Welcome to the world of David Every.

To me, I'd love to see a more robust clipboard management system/window for users. Plus, I think the whole cut/copy/paste files issue could be solved with a slight change to the terminology: move and copy, with different keystrokes and under the File menu, not the Edit menu. The basic idea is to use the kayboard/keystrokes to move and copy files, and it's a good feature to have. But as a file organizer and like any other app, the Finder should have cut/copy/paste reserved for text/image functions (renaming, changing icons, etc.) alone. I think keeping all these commands present but discrete would be a good move.

Main feature I'd like to see is the ability to click on a file in a save dialogue and have it's name appear in the "name" field. This helps out when saving many related files.

Hmm how hard would it be to write a "move and copy" function for the contextual menu in OS X anyway? *starts looking around*

[quote]Originally posted by Brad:
<strong>
<a href="http://mackido.com/Interface/CopyMore.html" target="_blank">http://mackido.com/Interface/CopyMore.html</a>

[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: Brad ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

This article actually brings up another minor annoyance of the Mac operating system. If I drag a file across drives, it copies the file rather than moves it. The article then goes on about how Windows does it wrong, and then tries to justify how "if Windows does it, and Mac doesn't, it must obviously be a bad UI design." (Not a real quote, there)

Personally, while I completely agree that the Windows way has shortcomings, I think it's a bit silly that a Finder window that looks like every other window acts different just because it's a different drive. If I move a file from one window to another, I expect it to move, not copy. Now I'm forced to guess when is a file going to be copied and when is it going to be moved.

It gets even worse when I try to move files on a network drive. The network drive could actually be on many separate drives and that information is hidden from me (and from the OS). Now, if I start moving files, the Mac lets me think I'm doing a move, when really (behind the scenes) a copy and delete is actually happenning. We now get into the exact same problems that the author was saying was bad about Windows. But now, it's actually worse - at least Windows was smart enough to tell the user something was happenning.

Personally, I thought the drag and drop style of moving files was supposed to be a cute graphical interface to the 'mv' command. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me why sometimes it's a 'cp' command and other times it's a 'mv' command. The OS already has a nice "Duplicate" command. If I wanted to copy a file, I would use that and then move the copy. If Apple really wanted to be consistent, they would modifiy Darwin so that 'mv' actually does a 'cp' when you are moving files across drives.

Of course some of my mindset may be due to years and years of programming under Unix and thinking the nicest thing about a windowing system is giving me multiple xterms on one terminal. For the most part (even on the Mac) when I want to move, copy, or delete a file, I feel FAR more comfortable opening up the terminal and doing it that way.

Copy again is the better design because of the greater chance of file corruption in the process of moving the file across the network. Copying means you have an intact original. You do have the option of moving the file anyway with the option key, and the threat of file corruption in networks is lower today, but still not negligible. Besides, is copying that unpopular when moving files across a network? Maybe it's because I know I'm making a backup in the process, but I usually prefer to copy to the network.

[quote]Originally posted by Brian Paulsen:
<strong>
Now I'm forced to guess when is a file going to be copied and when is it going to be moved.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Are we talking OS 9 or X?

I thought that big ugly green plus sign appeared whenever it would copy rather than move?

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>Copy again is the better design because of the greater chance of file corruption in the process of moving the file across the network. Copying means you have an intact original. You do have the option of moving the file anyway with the option key, and the threat of file corruption in networks is lower today, but still not negligible. Besides, is copying that unpopular when moving files across a network? Maybe it's because I know I'm making a backup in the process, but I usually prefer to copy to the network.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If that's true, then any drag-and-drop on a network drive should always be a copy, not a move. When you connect to network drives, you don't actually know whether or not those drives are also connecting to another network drive.

For example, I may connect to /home/foo and I want to move a file to /home/foo/bar. It's quite possible that /home/foo/bar is actually mounted somewhere else by the machine that is hosting /home/foo. You now have the same chance of file corruption that you are claiming for moving a file from your local drive to /home/foo.

If we arguing that Apple is making the file transfer safe for us, then the only logical thing for them to do is make sure that any file operations on network drives are copies and not moves.

[quote]When you connect to network drives, you don't actually know whether or not those drives are also connecting to another network drive.<hr></blockquote>splain this to one to me again, Lucy. Any time you move a file from one drive volume to another, whether its a partition or physical volume it will result in a file copy--if you're using the Finder. AFAIK the Finder also represents all drives/drive partitions as seperate devices.

I want the one thing youd EXPECT from an OS that's used by so many design/publishing professionals:

1) Built-in font management system for activating/deactivating fonts like Suitcase or better yet like ATM Deluxe from OS 9...

...the cocoa-only quasi manager doesn't cut it, they need a REAL font manager.

[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>splain this to one to me again, Lucy. Any time you move a file from one drive volume to another, whether its a partition or physical volume it will result in a file copy--if you're using the Finder. AFAIK the Finder also represents all drives/drive partitions as seperate devices.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sure...

Let's say I connect to a file server. When I connect, I give it a machine name and a directory that I want to mount. The Unix command that gets executed will be something like this:

mount /Volumes/foo myserver:/foo

Now, /foo may have several directories under it, such as /bar1 and /bar2. So, the structure looks like this: /foo/bar1 and /foo/bar2

What happens if I use the finder to move a file from /foo to /foo/bar1 ? Does it do a copy or does it do a move?

If you think it should do a move, I would argue that's incorrect (using the Apple logic of how the finder should work) Here's why:

/foo/bar1 could actually be mounted from a different drive on the myserver host. In other words, if we looked at the mount map for myserver, we may see something like
otherserver:/bar1 on /foo/bar1

What this means is that if the Mac OS issued a 'mv' command to move the files, it is not an atomic move. Instead, what actually happens is a copy and delete. As many have pointed out, a copy and delete can be very dangerous and could leave you filesystem in an unpredictable state.

Since the OS has no way of knowing whether or not the remote server is also mounting directories off of other drives, it should do the safe thing and always just copy when moving files from any folder to another (on network drives).

Of course, this would be rather tedious to the user, but it would be safer.

I want to fool all online banks into thinking they are talking to a windows machine

If I recall correctly, some of the early builds of OS X actually had Copy and Paste working with files.

I personally don't care for it, and the only time I think it's really useful is when, back in the old days, you had an Explorer window open, and it would take up your screen and only show one lcoation at a time so you couldn't easily drag and drop to your destination.

Guys, you're a little incorrect.

Firstly, I still don't understand why you nail me by saying that the paste feature to move a file is designwise incorrect since the file is not placed on the clipboard.

Now, apple already has the copy feature and obviously that does not place the contents of the file on the clipboard. I believe you will not nail Apple by saying the copy feature is incorrect as they have done so already.


Also, how did the discussion go on to moving/copying over networks? I didn't mean this.


Anyway,

Tell me what you think.

lol, even during this whole disculssion I didn't realize that X still has copy and paste of files implemented! Though the commands change depending on what is selected. Though the Paste says 'Paste item' even if there are multiple items copied.

And copying something else will overright the clipboard, and pasting the files elsewhere just pastes the file names as it always did.

as mentioned previously: resizable windows from and 'edge' (3 pixel proximity will do)

and

more keyboard shortcuts! (preferably i'd like to have the option of controlling my laptop without having to plug in a mouse or use the trackpad at all)

[quote]Originally posted by stevegongrui:
<strong>Firstly, I still don't understand why you nail me by saying that the paste feature to move a file is designwise incorrect since the file is not placed on the clipboard.

Now, apple already has the copy feature and obviously that does not place the contents of the file on the clipboard. I believe you will not nail Apple by saying the copy feature is incorrect as they have done so already.

Also, how did the discussion go on to moving/copying over networks? I didn't mean this.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not nailing you, I'm nailing the copying/cutting/pastig of files as desired by some here and/or as currently implemented.

I still insist that it's inconsistent, therefore confusing with every other occurence of copying and pasting throughout the system, especially as you point out, it doesn't involve the clipboard. It should be treated a specific behavior of the Finder, given its own shortcuts, menu items, probably under the File menu instead of the Edit menu. So yes, Apple IMHO is wrong in this, so maybe I am "nailing" them.

Well, it is a discussion of Windows features we'd like in OS X, so the topic may stray a bit even if out of this particular sub-thread.

[edit: I keep typing "widows" instead of "Windows"]

[ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>

THEMES ! (yes, XP has them. You can change the Fisher Price theme in the old-and-trusted WinDull theme).
Two will do. Keep Aqua, but at least build a 'pro' theme. More simple, strict, less color. And yes: more stylish. Aqua is too much in your face (and in the way).
John Doe likes aqua, so does most people (Joe Sixpack buys Windows, however), but please give us a choice.

like this ?

[quote]Originally posted by Defiant:
<strong>like this ?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Graphite look already in X you mean ? It's better, but not enough. Less stripes and 3D'isms will do, I think. Something between Graphite and SGI's IRIX maybe ...?

Why when I am in Safari, for example, and I click on an AIM window, does it not bring the WHOLE application to the front? Why can I close background windows in one click? This is like Windows. No sense of context. The OS is less App based. This sucks because on my tiny iBook (soon to be MiTi PB12") monitor I am cramped for space and can usually just see the edge of a window of an app I want to switch to. The Dock is slower than clicking that window, yet I can't just click that window, if I want the WHOLE dang app to come up.

This is stupid. At the least there should be a preference for this behavior.

And no menu blinking!!!

[quote]Originally posted by Aquatic:
<strong>This is like Windows. No sense of context. The OS is less App based.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It isn't like Windows, it is a document-centric OS. This is a very deliberate and critical move they made with OS X:

<a href="http://developer.apple.com/ue/switch/windows.html#macOSXDoesntUseMDI" target="_blank">linky</a>

[edit]<a href="http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Essentials/AquaHIGuidelines/AHIGWindows/index.html" target="_blank">another linky</a>

I much prefer this because now I can move among applications more easily. The idea is that your work comes first, the aps are just tools to use depending o the context. You can tell what app you're in by the context: menubar, palettes, inspectors, etc.

[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>

I would like to see a "My Network Places" type thing in Mac OS X...except not named "My." Windows names everything "My" and its damned patronizing.

I would also like to see "resize window from everywhere."

I don't like cluttered contextual menus or "cut/paste" to move a file. In Windows it's damn hard to tell whether dragging/dropping a file will move a file, copy a file, or just make a shortcut to that file. In the Mac, it's always move within the same volume, copy if it's to another volume.

I'd OS X to lose it's windows-like habit of grouping close and resize widgets together. That's just bad UI, and how it got into Mac OS X is beyond me.

I'd also like the Dock to have some differentiation between shortcuts and working programs, or to go away completely. I'd like universal keyboard shortcuts for cycling through individual windows on an app, and through open apps.

I'd like the menu bar for each app to be open on the monitor where the app resides (for multiple monitor setups) instead of being tied to the 'main monitor'.

I'd like to see the Applications menu from Mac OS 9 return as well, and "both arrows on both sides" as a default option on scrollbars. SIGH...I have a long list, don't I?

[quote]Originally posted by Gizzmonic:
<strong>I would like to see a "My Network Places" type thing in Mac OS X...except not named "My." Windows names everything "My" and its damned patronizing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is what /Network is *supposed* to be, more or less. Right now MacOS X is in flux from NetInfo to Rendevous/LDAP/SLP, but I expect this will be filled out within the next few months.

[quote]<strong>I would also like to see "resize window from everywhere."
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not something that's going to happen without adding window borders. 1) Magic invisible areas in your UI are about the biggest no-no you can have. No visible item, then no action. Period. 2) You can't have a magic invisible resize widget in the same space as a scroll bar. When a user clicks, do they want to resize? Move the scroll bar?

And, since the borderless windows seems to be a firmly entrenched item in Aqua (and one I *like*), I don't see this happening.

[quote]<strong>I don't like cluttered contextual menus or "cut/paste" to move a file. In Windows it's damn hard to tell whether dragging/dropping a file will move a file, copy a file, or just make a shortcut to that file. In the Mac, it's always move within the same volume, copy if it's to another volume.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Unless you use key modifiers. I can never remember which keys do which, but since I can hit them quickly in the middle of a drag and have the cursor change accordingly, it's very quick and handy, with instant feedback.

[quote]<strong>I'd OS X to lose it's windows-like habit of grouping close and resize widgets together. That's just bad UI, and how it got into Mac OS X is beyond me.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why is it bad? Serious question. Is there UI research to back this up, like there is for having the menu bar on an edge, and not in each window?

[quote]<strong>I'd also like the Dock to have some differentiation between shortcuts and working programs, or to go away completely. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't see the problem here... the Dock holds 'access points' for apps. Some are ones you add, and some are ones that are added automatically when you start an app. (You need a way to get to it, obviously.) It removes the necessity for several redundant app access methods like we had in OS 9.

[quote]<strong>I'd like universal keyboard shortcuts for cycling through individual windows on an app, and through open apps.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Windows: Cmd-~
Apps: Cmd-Tab



Also, Cmd-Tab doesn't just go to the next app, it goes to your other most recently used app, so you can switch between two apps back and forth quickly. If you want to cycle further, just keep hitting Tab.

[quote]<strong>I'd like the menu bar for each app to be open on the monitor where the app resides (for multiple monitor setups) instead of being tied to the 'main monitor'.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Er... so you'd have multiple apps 'active' at once?

Better: Have the menu bar be on the screen with the current active window. (Problem: Have to reserve the menu bar area on each screen for placement of the menu when needed. Or, replicate the same menu bar on all screens... which would just be strange.)

[quote]<strong>I'd like to see the Applications menu from Mac OS 9 return as well, and "both arrows on both sides" as a default option on scrollbars. SIGH...I have a long list, don't I?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not really, just redundant with a dozen other threads over the past two years...

I agree with you on the scrollbars, at least.

[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>

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

5) Ability to point at a file and see a tooltip pop up with basic file info.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes. I miss number 3 and would like to see number 5.

[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>I agree with you on the scrollbars, at least.</strong><hr></blockquote>...which is why Apple did make it an option and it is available through the terminal or TinkerTool.

[quote]Originally posted by Brad:
<strong>...which is why Apple did make it an option and it is available through the terminal or TinkerTool. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Has it started working more or less universally? Last time I played with it (10.1.x) it popped up in some apps, wasn't there in others, and did *BIZARRE* things in some. Decided to forego the headaches until it settled down.

(BTW, in case anyone is curious, the trick is to use, in the Terminal: defaults writes "Apple Global Domain" AppleScrollBarVariant "DoubleBoth" You may need to sudo it, IIRC.)

[Edit: typo in command]

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>

One thing I would like that I completely forgot about, and I don't know if it's been said, is the "Send To" feature Windows Explorer has.

What it is for those not in the know is on any file or folder you can bring up the context menu and send the file or folder to any application. Right now OS X only has this for files. It would be nice to have this for folders too as some apps can actually accept folders as an item to process. Like Graphic Converter will take the folder and open a Browser Window to the location.

[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>Has it started working more or less universally?</strong><hr></blockquote>For as long as I can recall (since Public Beta) the double both-ends option has worked flawlessly for me. I have had it set as my default since... well, since the public beta. The only cases I can recall having problems are in the scrollable areas that are smaller than the height of the actual four arrows and in the very rare apps like Melody Assistant or Cinema 4D that use custom widgets for scrolling altogether.

[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>

The Acorn (RISC OS) did this really well. You chose save and an icon for the (as yet unsaved) document appeared in a floating window. You entered a name in a field underneath then dragged it to wherever you wanted in the finder.

Amorya