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
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.
<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.
- 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.
- 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.
<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)
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.
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!).
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.
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
- 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]" />
[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.
Comments
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'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>
<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>
<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.
<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
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
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.
- 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...
<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)
<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">
<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 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>
<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.
<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.
<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
<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>
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>