Basically what I'm saying is, for 90% of users, let the computer do the busywork so the user can get back to what they need to do.
Wrong. My sister is quite bright but she doesn't know what the **** Windows is doing to her files. All she knows is that they get put into the Start menu.
I suppose that *could* be enough for most people...but that's just because Microsoft would like to make you think that it's enough. I'd rather know where my apps and files are just like I'd like to know where I put my books, my food, my toilet paper and severely beat other people that try to organize my things inside my house.
At the end of the school year, her desktop was full of shit. She had no idea how to get rid these files because Windows practically teaches you not to touch your files and just let the installers figure it out. She didn't know how to uninstall her programs. She didn't know where they were stored on her computer other than under the Start menu.
This is ****ing inadequate if you ask me.
Like I said "let the computer do the busywork" is fine with me until the computer decides how to organize my files. I draw the line there and everyone else should to, or novices like my sister end up not knowing what's on her computer and what's not.
What I still don't like is when you open a disk image and there are all kinds of files inside. This means you have to create a new folder to put them in and then drag the folder where you want it. That is when .sit is better because it comes as a folder that can be relocated. Eliminates a step.
What the hell? You can stuff a bunch of files individually inside a .sit just like you can put a bunch of individual files in a .dmg.
It just depends how the person stuffed the files or created the disk image. Normally a .dmg file will contain 1 bundle and maybe a Read Me. If there are more than 1 essential file, that for some mysterious reason, has to be outside the bundle, then it's up to the dude to create a folder inside the disk image so you can drag and drop the folder.
Someone could just stuff together a bunch of files without a folder and when it's unstuffed, the files will be strewn across your desktop if the sit file is uncompressed on the desktop.
So whatever disadvantage you just mentionned isn't exclusive to .dmg.
Well, kim kap sol, I think Windows goes a bit too far. It puts crap in your Program Files, and there's the Registry, and shortcuts on the desktop, and the Start Menu, and then there's the System Tray in the lower right, and often they set themselves to start upon login/launch and they end up being as annoying as possible when they want to be updated... at one point, AIM would launch the moment I opened Outlook Express. I had to first set my default messaging program to MSN Messenger, then change the name of Messenger in the Program Files so it wouldn't find it and therefore wouldn't open it. That took care of it... but 99% of Windows users would just put up with it, saying "oh, it's a computer, they always do stuff like this." Of course, if a Mac does anything wrong, it's "Macs suck!" quicker than a tissue paper cat is chased by an asbestos dog through hell.
I hate that crap.
But I think it would be better for the simple Installer application to be used in conjunction with .pkg files, and at the end just have a message saying "To use your new software, look for it in the Applications folder. You may now delete the file named filename.pkg." That way you know where it went, it's easy to remove, and it doesn't leave crap on your desktop.
Sometimes I find your posts inconsistent. I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but didn't you rant that the new features in Safari v73 won't be used by most users and all they want is a simple web browser? If so, then why are you defending the probably better, but also more difficult to understand approach of using .dmgs for installation rather than .pkgs? I bet most people would prefer .pkgs because they're so easy, even though most of the geeks here at this board might prefer .dmgs. Anyway, I make these statements with respect for you and if I offend you, please let me know - we've gotten into one too many flame wars here over things that really don't matter, and I want to avoid that as much as possible.
Sometimes I find your posts inconsistent. I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but didn't you rant that the new features in Safari v73 won't be used by most users and all they want is a simple web browser? If so, then why are you defending the probably better, but also more difficult to understand approach of using .dmgs for installation rather than .pkgs? I bet most people would prefer .pkgs because they're so easy, even though most of the geeks here at this board might prefer .dmgs. Anyway, I make these statements with respect for you and if I offend you, please let me know - we've gotten into one too many flame wars here over things that really don't matter, and I want to avoid that as much as possible.
.pkg aren't easy...they act like a Windows installer. .pkg are normally used to install new frameworks or other system files that users wouldn't know how to install.
.dmg simply allows the user the freedom to install the (what should always be a) bundle file anywhere they want.
.dmg for bundles, .pkg for updates to bundles (if they are too large to be worth redownloading) or installing system files.
With a .pkg file, you're often stuck unable to uninstall the files that were installed without knowing what exactly was installed and where. You, Luca, with your Windows-ish personality, probably don't care where the files go and where they're installed. I do though.
I made an analogy in my previous post that I don't like other organizing my own stuff for me. I don't like the computer organizing my files either. But you seem to like people moving your stuff for you...would you mind if I went over to your house and cleaned it up for you?
How aren't they easy? It doesn't involve much to just click a few "continue" buttons. Just because it updates frameworks or whatever doesn't automatically make it "hard." And just because it is somewhat similar to Windows also doesn't make it "hard." Maybe it would be better if you got to pick the folder, just like most OS 9 installers.
I like the core concept of disk images, in that you have a single file (the application itself) which you can put wherever you want, but it can be confusing for someone who doesn't know much about computers.
I like the core concept of disk images, in that you have a single file (the application itself) which you can put wherever you want, but it can be confusing for someone who doesn't know much about computers.
Yes it can be confusing...but it's not difficult to learn for christsake.
Do you think people magically figured out what to do with physical floppy disks when inserted into a Mac 128k back in the days? This whole GUI thing was brand new back then. How did they know they had to drag files off the floppy disk and onto a HD when HD started becoming popular.
Dragging and dropping has been around since 1984. It's not a new concept to anyone who's used a Mac before. It might be to a new computer user or a Windows user, but just like the 1984 people, they had to learn that dragging and dropping a file copies it to a location.
This is what a disk image is. It's like a physical disk or metaphorically a computer software box package...you open it, remove the contents onto your desktop or wherever, and then your throw away the box...or you keep.
Stop making it sound confusing...it's not. And people aren't as confused as some of you say they are. If someone doesn't grasp the concept after 2 or 3 tries, I'd have to question his ability to do *anything* on a Mac. Drag and dropping is a fundamental concept.
Once you get around understand the concept, you realize .dmg is the most advantageous format.
You're right, it's pretty easy, especially if the disk image has a picture inside saying which file to put where. Usually they have a big arrow, saying "Drag this to your applications folder to install." So as long as a developer does this it should be pretty easy for someone to get the hang of it.
I think the main thing isn't knowing how to install it from the disk image, but what the disk image is. I don't think a lot of people think of it as being similar to a piece of removable media, because they didn't insert anything to begin with. But the icon OS X uses helps, and as long as they figure out how to install their software and get rid of the image it shouldn't be a problem at all.
You are probably correct that the developer could create the .dmg file correctly so that the user won't have to create a new folder. But this is not always the case. I download a lot of software to see what it looks like and a lot of it comes with many files.
I love it when .dmg files just has the icon. I really liked how Safari worked. It just dumped the icon right on my desktop. No ejecting of the disk. Just drag the icon to my apps folder.
I also agree that I want to have control over where the apps are placed. It has helped me understand how things are filed. When I use my PC at work, there is no way to know where all of that stuff goes.
I think it's exactly these self expanding disc-images a-la Safari that break the whole concept of Disk Images. Then Disk-images start to behave like compressed files (.sit/.zip) and the real confusion (for novice users) start.
Just last week I was explaining the concept of disk-images to my girlfriend who just recently switched to X:
It took a few sentences and everything was crystal clear:
"If you want Fetch on your computer, I can burn it on a CD -> give it to you -> you put it in your comp -> Disc appears on desktop -> Dbl-click disc -> have access to disc and do the usual -> drag disc to trash to eject. BUT, I cannot email you a CD-Rom. So I convert the CD-Rom into a file, called a disk-image, and I email that to you. If you dbl-click that file, it's 'as-if' you insert a CD-Rom in you comp: it appears on your desktop -> dbl-click disc -> have access to disc and do the usual -> drag disc to trash to eject. As long as you have the disk-image file, you can dbl-click it to 'insert' the disc"
Does make sense, doesn't it? also for novice users...
That took care of it... but 99% of Windows users would just put up with it, saying "oh, it's a computer, they always do stuff like this." Of course, if a Mac does anything wrong, it's "Macs suck!" quicker than a tissue paper cat is chased by an asbestos dog through hell.
Damn skippy.
Yeah .pkg are are a little control-freak but I trust Mac apps to behave. I suppose the best way is to just have a folder with an app that says "Drag this to Applications" and stuff the folder. What can be simpler? THAT is what I meant. A "package" of an Application, where it's the icon and all the stuff it needs is inside it. This was such a good idea.
you all forgot one thing (unless i didnt' read it posts got long so i started skipping)
.dmg's are the BEST, and i mean BEST way to pirate software...it is simply easier on a mac, no questions asked to do. that is the biggest short (if u see it as that) to the power of disk images...but its the same with stuffed files...the better way you have to get information around the easier it is to use to pirate stuff
I only just switched to mac about a year and a half ago. I really did find the whole disk image thing confusing and still dont know why its a superior distribution format, I always just drag it onto my desktop anyway.
Now, one thing I really do like about disk images and use often, is the ability to create an encrypted container, that rocks and on the PC requires third party software.
I never understood the point of disc images. They add phantom drives to your drive list, they add an extra step, they just suck.
I do. Apple started giving stuff that used to be on CDs and floppies over the modem and the Internet. Much of it, however, had to be assembled properly. Apple decided that instead of asking end users to assemble it, and/or have to redesign the installers and such, they'd simply let you download a "disk" and double-click it.
Comments
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Basically what I'm saying is, for 90% of users, let the computer do the busywork so the user can get back to what they need to do.
Wrong. My sister is quite bright but she doesn't know what the **** Windows is doing to her files. All she knows is that they get put into the Start menu.
I suppose that *could* be enough for most people...but that's just because Microsoft would like to make you think that it's enough. I'd rather know where my apps and files are just like I'd like to know where I put my books, my food, my toilet paper and severely beat other people that try to organize my things inside my house.
At the end of the school year, her desktop was full of shit. She had no idea how to get rid these files because Windows practically teaches you not to touch your files and just let the installers figure it out. She didn't know how to uninstall her programs. She didn't know where they were stored on her computer other than under the Start menu.
This is ****ing inadequate if you ask me.
Like I said "let the computer do the busywork" is fine with me until the computer decides how to organize my files. I draw the line there and everyone else should to, or novices like my sister end up not knowing what's on her computer and what's not.
Originally posted by kcmac
What I still don't like is when you open a disk image and there are all kinds of files inside. This means you have to create a new folder to put them in and then drag the folder where you want it. That is when .sit is better because it comes as a folder that can be relocated. Eliminates a step.
What the hell? You can stuff a bunch of files individually inside a .sit just like you can put a bunch of individual files in a .dmg.
It just depends how the person stuffed the files or created the disk image. Normally a .dmg file will contain 1 bundle and maybe a Read Me. If there are more than 1 essential file, that for some mysterious reason, has to be outside the bundle, then it's up to the dude to create a folder inside the disk image so you can drag and drop the folder.
Someone could just stuff together a bunch of files without a folder and when it's unstuffed, the files will be strewn across your desktop if the sit file is uncompressed on the desktop.
So whatever disadvantage you just mentionned isn't exclusive to .dmg.
I hate that crap.
But I think it would be better for the simple Installer application to be used in conjunction with .pkg files, and at the end just have a message saying "To use your new software, look for it in the Applications folder. You may now delete the file named filename.pkg." That way you know where it went, it's easy to remove, and it doesn't leave crap on your desktop.
Sometimes I find your posts inconsistent. I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but didn't you rant that the new features in Safari v73 won't be used by most users and all they want is a simple web browser? If so, then why are you defending the probably better, but also more difficult to understand approach of using .dmgs for installation rather than .pkgs? I bet most people would prefer .pkgs because they're so easy, even though most of the geeks here at this board might prefer .dmgs. Anyway, I make these statements with respect for you and if I offend you, please let me know - we've gotten into one too many flame wars here over things that really don't matter, and I want to avoid that as much as possible.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Sometimes I find your posts inconsistent. I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but didn't you rant that the new features in Safari v73 won't be used by most users and all they want is a simple web browser? If so, then why are you defending the probably better, but also more difficult to understand approach of using .dmgs for installation rather than .pkgs? I bet most people would prefer .pkgs because they're so easy, even though most of the geeks here at this board might prefer .dmgs. Anyway, I make these statements with respect for you and if I offend you, please let me know - we've gotten into one too many flame wars here over things that really don't matter, and I want to avoid that as much as possible.
.pkg aren't easy...they act like a Windows installer. .pkg are normally used to install new frameworks or other system files that users wouldn't know how to install.
.dmg simply allows the user the freedom to install the (what should always be a) bundle file anywhere they want.
.dmg for bundles, .pkg for updates to bundles (if they are too large to be worth redownloading) or installing system files.
With a .pkg file, you're often stuck unable to uninstall the files that were installed without knowing what exactly was installed and where. You, Luca, with your Windows-ish personality, probably don't care where the files go and where they're installed. I do though.
I made an analogy in my previous post that I don't like other organizing my own stuff for me. I don't like the computer organizing my files either. But you seem to like people moving your stuff for you...would you mind if I went over to your house and cleaned it up for you?
I like the core concept of disk images, in that you have a single file (the application itself) which you can put wherever you want, but it can be confusing for someone who doesn't know much about computers.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
I like the core concept of disk images, in that you have a single file (the application itself) which you can put wherever you want, but it can be confusing for someone who doesn't know much about computers.
Yes it can be confusing...but it's not difficult to learn for christsake.
Do you think people magically figured out what to do with physical floppy disks when inserted into a Mac 128k back in the days? This whole GUI thing was brand new back then. How did they know they had to drag files off the floppy disk and onto a HD when HD started becoming popular.
Dragging and dropping has been around since 1984. It's not a new concept to anyone who's used a Mac before. It might be to a new computer user or a Windows user, but just like the 1984 people, they had to learn that dragging and dropping a file copies it to a location.
This is what a disk image is. It's like a physical disk or metaphorically a computer software box package...you open it, remove the contents onto your desktop or wherever, and then your throw away the box...or you keep.
Stop making it sound confusing...it's not. And people aren't as confused as some of you say they are. If someone doesn't grasp the concept after 2 or 3 tries, I'd have to question his ability to do *anything* on a Mac. Drag and dropping is a fundamental concept.
Once you get around understand the concept, you realize .dmg is the most advantageous format.
I think the main thing isn't knowing how to install it from the disk image, but what the disk image is. I don't think a lot of people think of it as being similar to a piece of removable media, because they didn't insert anything to begin with. But the icon OS X uses helps, and as long as they figure out how to install their software and get rid of the image it shouldn't be a problem at all.
You are probably correct that the developer could create the .dmg file correctly so that the user won't have to create a new folder. But this is not always the case. I download a lot of software to see what it looks like and a lot of it comes with many files.
I love it when .dmg files just has the icon. I really liked how Safari worked. It just dumped the icon right on my desktop. No ejecting of the disk. Just drag the icon to my apps folder.
I also agree that I want to have control over where the apps are placed. It has helped me understand how things are filed. When I use my PC at work, there is no way to know where all of that stuff goes.
Just last week I was explaining the concept of disk-images to my girlfriend who just recently switched to X:
It took a few sentences and everything was crystal clear:
"If you want Fetch on your computer, I can burn it on a CD -> give it to you -> you put it in your comp -> Disc appears on desktop -> Dbl-click disc -> have access to disc and do the usual -> drag disc to trash to eject. BUT, I cannot email you a CD-Rom. So I convert the CD-Rom into a file, called a disk-image, and I email that to you. If you dbl-click that file, it's 'as-if' you insert a CD-Rom in you comp: it appears on your desktop -> dbl-click disc -> have access to disc and do the usual -> drag disc to trash to eject. As long as you have the disk-image file, you can dbl-click it to 'insert' the disc"
Does make sense, doesn't it? also for novice users...
(my $0.02)
That took care of it... but 99% of Windows users would just put up with it, saying "oh, it's a computer, they always do stuff like this." Of course, if a Mac does anything wrong, it's "Macs suck!" quicker than a tissue paper cat is chased by an asbestos dog through hell.
Damn skippy.
Yeah .pkg are are a little control-freak but I trust Mac apps to behave. I suppose the best way is to just have a folder with an app that says "Drag this to Applications" and stuff the folder. What can be simpler? THAT is what I meant. A "package" of an Application, where it's the icon and all the stuff it needs is inside it. This was such a good idea.
.dmg's are the BEST, and i mean BEST way to pirate software...it is simply easier on a mac, no questions asked to do. that is the biggest short (if u see it as that) to the power of disk images...but its the same with stuffed files...the better way you have to get information around the easier it is to use to pirate stuff
Why is that easier than copying a .sit with a folder in it that says "drag to applications"?
Now, one thing I really do like about disk images and use often, is the ability to create an encrypted container, that rocks and on the PC requires third party software.
Originally posted by Aquatic
I never understood the point of disc images. They add phantom drives to your drive list, they add an extra step, they just suck.
I do. Apple started giving stuff that used to be on CDs and floppies over the modem and the Internet. Much of it, however, had to be assembled properly. Apple decided that instead of asking end users to assemble it, and/or have to redesign the installers and such, they'd simply let you download a "disk" and double-click it.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Exactly. Disc images are stupid. A stuffed .pck is just plain better.
I perfer .dmg. However, .pkg ('Package' or 'Bundle') files can have the program compressed inside, I believe.
(insert image of Mr. T saying "Grave diggin' is for fools!" here)
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Why are you digging up such an old topic?
(insert image of Mr. T saying "Grave diggin' is for fools!" here)
I'm not sure. I just felt like it.