I love Apple-W quitting applications. Finally! When I first started using the Mac I was wondering why the HELL all these apps were still running with no windows. I say bring on more Apple-W quitting applications if there are no more active windows for that app.
You just made me die inside a little
Seriously, I love having apps still open even if no windows are. If I want the program to quit, I'll QUIT it.
On the other hand, in contrast to Eugene, I love tabbed browsers. The only way to fly, in my opinion.
they should have a setting when you first boot after install to set the nanny level to either a n00b level or a l33t level...
I think it's interesting how OS X gave Mac users l33t level authority with Darwin (after being a GUI-only OS for years), while the MS-DOS prompt in Windows has become more and more obscure. Not that it matters - you couldn't do anything USEFUL with the DOS prompt after Win95...
Seriously, I love having apps still open even if no windows are. If I want the program to quit, I'll QUIT it.
On the other hand, in contrast to Eugene, I love tabbed browsers. The only way to fly, in my opinion.
When I first switched over from the dark side, I was annoyed with having to QUIT the program instead of just closing the window, but now that I'm used to it, I think it's great. It's a great reminder that the OS is deeper than just the GUI.
I second the opinion on tabbed browsers. One of the best things to ever happen to browsing (though some of those FireFox plugins are pretty impressive...).
I love Apple-W quitting applications. Finally! When I first started using the Mac I was wondering why the HELL all these apps were still running with no windows. I say bring on more Apple-W quitting applications if there are no more active windows for that app.
Suni, you made me cringe. A CMD-W, that quits an App is a nasty
bug and an awful breach of good UI Guidelines regarding Mac OS.
Since 1984 -->
CMD-Q = quitting the App
CMD-W = closing a/the window
Closing a Window, that closes the App is so Windowish,
i hate that behaviour.
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
You just made me die inside a little
Seriously, I love having apps still open even if no windows are. If I want the program to quit, I'll QUIT it.
...
Ditto.
Suni, ever heard of CMD-H? The true Power of Mac OS X.
I love Apple-W quitting applications. Finally! When I first started using the Mac I was wondering why the HELL all these apps were still running with no windows. I say bring on more Apple-W quitting applications if there are no more active windows for that app.
I have a running app. I'm done with the windows that it currently has open, but want to open new ones.
Your way, I have to create the new window first, then send it to the back whilst I close all the other windows (otherwise, app will quit when I close the final window I don't want).
Let's say I'm done with an App for now, but might want to come back to it later. Why should I have to leave open a window I'm done with just so that App can remain running?
This "close last window" to quit App thing is a horrible, horrible thing born of Microsoft Window's improper distinction between windows and applications.
I love Apple-W quitting applications. Finally! When I first started using the Mac I was wondering why the HELL all these apps were still running with no windows. I say bring on more Apple-W quitting applications if there are no more active windows for that app.
I think it should be a system preference that can then be adjusted on a per-application basis as well. For example, System Preferences can die all it pleases when I close a window, because it's practically useless without the window open. (Yeah, I know, docklet menu, but who really tools around with System Prefs that much?) iTunes and other audio programs I love having open without windows, and long-load programs such as Photoshop and Dreamweaver are much more convenient to not have to relaunch, obviously.
I hope Leopard is remotely comparable to Vista in speed... these past OS X releases have been pretty sluggish even on high-end hardware.
Really? I've always found the opposite to be true, at least since 10.2. I have a two year old P4 3.4 at work (2GB RAM) and it stalls a lot more often than my macs do, which is frustrating. That is, it does the Windows equivalent of the beachball, which is to crawl to a standstill and offer no definitive indication other than the fans coming on hard. I think it might be partially due to Google Desktop, but then again the search & find capabilities on the mac are better than those of Google Desktop (I'd say), and it doesn't cause periodic slow downs.
This kind of stuff also happens for 10-30 seconds after I close big apps. I think Windows XP's memory handler must be a piece of shit. That's the only explanation I can think of.
Lastly, I like Cmd-Q. I also like how Adobe Apps and FormZ on Windows stick it to the Man and use Ctrl-Q.
Ok, I need to chime in on the whole Cmd-Q, Cmd-W issue here. Cmd-Q just makes more sense when you want to quit using an application. The way Windows does it (with Ctrl-W) effectively ties the resources of the Application to the Window process. I have always thought this was one of Windows largest follies. If an application isn't written correctly, you can have multiple processes going of the same application, which is a huge waste of resources, and a nightmare to handle proper memory deallocation.
Yes, it is different than Windows by using Cmd-Q. However, you switched from Windows to the Mac platform because it was different and better.
I think it should be a system preference that can then be adjusted on a per-application basis as well. ...
no
Quote:
...
iTunes and other audio programs I love having open without windows, and long-load programs such as Photoshop and Dreamweaver are much more convenient to not have to relaunch, obviously.
Vox is right. The specific nature of the UI is the job of the application designer. Putting these attributes in the hands of users is needlessly complex and has the potential to disturb the intended uniformities that OSes are supposed to uphold. Quiting a single-window app by closing the window is fairly intuitive, and I don't think the deviance here is confusing anyone.
beyond that, Mac OS X's memory management and process switching is actually quite good, and the performance penalty of leaving apps "open" is quite minimal.
Quiting a single-window app by closing the window is fairly intuitive, and I don't think the deviance here is confusing anyone.
I disagree with that statement completely. The job of the application and the job of the window are two separate jobs. The job of the application is to control what is going on, and the interaction of the user with that specific task. The job of the window is to give the view of the application.
Although that is a very simplified way of looking at the Windowing environment, it is the basis of the Application model that Macintosh has used since Day 1.
Addendum to my rant:
Windows way of looking at it: if it isn't there, then it must be gone. A.k.a. if a tree falls in the woods, and you weren't there to hear it, the tree didn't fall.
Macintosh way of looking at it: if it isn't there, I might come back upon the users request. A.k.a. if a tree falls in the woods, and you weren't there to hear it, the tree did in fact fall, and kill a squirrel.
I disagree with that statement completely. The job of the application and the job of the window are two separate jobs. The job of the application is to control what is going on, and the interaction of the user with that specific task. The job of the window is to give the view of the application.
Although that is a very simplified way of looking at the Windowing environment, it is the basis of the Application model that Macintosh has used since Day 1.
...
I agree thoroughly.
Additionally, although that is a very simplified way of looking
at the Windowing environment, it is something a user can grasp
immediately. (If not utterly disturbed by using Windows(TM)
While you make plenty of sense, you also are forcing your argument. If you are using an application that uses a single window, and offers no capacity for opening a window other than the single window it uses, there is no reason to close the window other than to quit the application.
I will also say that I agree that all mac apps should uniformly obey the behavior where quit and close are different actions, but I don't find it a cardinal sin when a single window app combines quit and close. One such example is System Preferences, which, I think, prior to 10.2 required a quit, but now can be closed like a window.
I will also say that I agree that all mac apps should uniformly obey the behavior where quit and close are different actions, but I don't find it a cardinal sin when a single window app combines quit and close. One such example is System Preferences, which, I think, prior to 10.2 required a quit, but now can be closed like a window.
Hmmm, you make a valid argument (especially bringing up System Preferences). I just think, for your average application, there should be separate Close and Quit.
If you are using an application that uses a single window, and offers no capacity for opening a window other than the single window it uses, there is no reason to close the window other than to quit the application.
...
Personally i got used to this *policy* of sometime this and sometime
that, though i think it is plain wrong.
iPhoto is a very nasty example of bad, unlogical
and inconsistent behaviour imo.
Cmd-W quits iPhoto, but if you read the menu entry
under File there is written "Close" aside Cmd-W.
Close what, one can ask, the frontmost window,
the entire app, what???
This is plain false terminology, is it not?
If the definition of "single window app" implies
"no more window than just exactly one" than iPhoto
isn't a "single window app" in this narrow definition.
At least it is no more a "single window app" than, say,
While you make plenty of sense, you also are forcing your argument. If you are using an application that uses a single window, and offers no capacity for opening a window other than the single window it uses, there is no reason to close the window other than to quit the application.
The inability to call a new window from the menubar is the result of a design flaw by the author...it should be disallowed in the UI guidelines. Every OS X app should have at least one window open at all times prior to quitting...the menubar is the parent window in an MDI sense.
Cmd-W quits iPhoto, but if you read the menu entry
under File there is written "Close" aside Cmd-W.
Close what, one can ask, the frontmost window,
the entire app, what???
This is plain false terminology, is it not?
I don't know about the iLife '06 version, but the previous version of iPhoto wasn't even a single-window app. In fact it wasn't just one app, but at least two! When you ordered prints, it would bring up a separate app and consequently a second window.
Comments
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
...Apple-W quitting applications...
I love Apple-W quitting applications. Finally! When I first started using the Mac I was wondering why the HELL all these apps were still running with no windows. I say bring on more Apple-W quitting applications if there are no more active windows for that app.
You just made me die inside a little
Seriously, I love having apps still open even if no windows are. If I want the program to quit, I'll QUIT it.
On the other hand, in contrast to Eugene, I love tabbed browsers. The only way to fly, in my opinion.
Originally posted by cj171
they should have a setting when you first boot after install to set the nanny level to either a n00b level or a l33t level...
I think it's interesting how OS X gave Mac users l33t level authority with Darwin (after being a GUI-only OS for years), while the MS-DOS prompt in Windows has become more and more obscure. Not that it matters - you couldn't do anything USEFUL with the DOS prompt after Win95...
Originally posted by Flounder
Seriously, I love having apps still open even if no windows are. If I want the program to quit, I'll QUIT it.
On the other hand, in contrast to Eugene, I love tabbed browsers. The only way to fly, in my opinion.
When I first switched over from the dark side, I was annoyed with having to QUIT the program instead of just closing the window, but now that I'm used to it, I think it's great. It's a great reminder that the OS is deeper than just the GUI.
I second the opinion on tabbed browsers. One of the best things to ever happen to browsing (though some of those FireFox plugins are pretty impressive...).
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
...Apple-W quitting applications...
I love Apple-W quitting applications. Finally! When I first started using the Mac I was wondering why the HELL all these apps were still running with no windows. I say bring on more Apple-W quitting applications if there are no more active windows for that app.
Suni, you made me cringe. A CMD-W, that quits an App is a nasty
bug and an awful breach of good UI Guidelines regarding Mac OS.
Since 1984 -->
CMD-Q = quitting the App
CMD-W = closing a/the window
Closing a Window, that closes the App is so Windowish,
i hate that behaviour.
Originally posted by Flounder
You just made me die inside a little
Seriously, I love having apps still open even if no windows are. If I want the program to quit, I'll QUIT it.
...
Ditto.
Suni, ever heard of CMD-H? The true Power of Mac OS X.
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
...Apple-W quitting applications...
I love Apple-W quitting applications. Finally! When I first started using the Mac I was wondering why the HELL all these apps were still running with no windows. I say bring on more Apple-W quitting applications if there are no more active windows for that app.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!
I have a running app. I'm done with the windows that it currently has open, but want to open new ones.
Your way, I have to create the new window first, then send it to the back whilst I close all the other windows (otherwise, app will quit when I close the final window I don't want).
Let's say I'm done with an App for now, but might want to come back to it later. Why should I have to leave open a window I'm done with just so that App can remain running?
This "close last window" to quit App thing is a horrible, horrible thing born of Microsoft Window's improper distinction between windows and applications.
I've got 20 and more apps open all the time (7/24) and this
on an iMac G3 350. A nearly 7 year old Computer.
Guess what, Suni, this trick alone makes this particular
computer feel speedier than a 2 Year old PC.
(Not to mention my 12" PB
Really. Keep the Apps open, and opening a Doc
is almost instantly (instead of opening the Doc, that
has to launch the associated App previously.)
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
...Apple-W quitting applications...
I love Apple-W quitting applications. Finally! When I first started using the Mac I was wondering why the HELL all these apps were still running with no windows. I say bring on more Apple-W quitting applications if there are no more active windows for that app.
I think it should be a system preference that can then be adjusted on a per-application basis as well. For example, System Preferences can die all it pleases when I close a window, because it's practically useless without the window open. (Yeah, I know, docklet menu, but who really tools around with System Prefs that much?) iTunes and other audio programs I love having open without windows, and long-load programs such as Photoshop and Dreamweaver are much more convenient to not have to relaunch, obviously.
Originally posted by Placebo
I hope Leopard is remotely comparable to Vista in speed... these past OS X releases have been pretty sluggish even on high-end hardware.
Really? I've always found the opposite to be true, at least since 10.2. I have a two year old P4 3.4 at work (2GB RAM) and it stalls a lot more often than my macs do, which is frustrating. That is, it does the Windows equivalent of the beachball, which is to crawl to a standstill and offer no definitive indication other than the fans coming on hard. I think it might be partially due to Google Desktop, but then again the search & find capabilities on the mac are better than those of Google Desktop (I'd say), and it doesn't cause periodic slow downs.
This kind of stuff also happens for 10-30 seconds after I close big apps. I think Windows XP's memory handler must be a piece of shit. That's the only explanation I can think of.
Lastly, I like Cmd-Q. I also like how Adobe Apps and FormZ on Windows stick it to the Man and use Ctrl-Q.
Yes, it is different than Windows by using Cmd-Q. However, you switched from Windows to the Mac platform because it was different and better.
Originally posted by Placebo
I think it should be a system preference that can then be adjusted on a per-application basis as well. ...
no
...
iTunes and other audio programs I love having open without windows, and long-load programs such as Photoshop and Dreamweaver are much more convenient to not have to relaunch, obviously.
CMD-H does the trick.
beyond that, Mac OS X's memory management and process switching is actually quite good, and the performance penalty of leaving apps "open" is quite minimal.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Quiting a single-window app by closing the window is fairly intuitive, and I don't think the deviance here is confusing anyone.
I disagree with that statement completely. The job of the application and the job of the window are two separate jobs. The job of the application is to control what is going on, and the interaction of the user with that specific task. The job of the window is to give the view of the application.
Although that is a very simplified way of looking at the Windowing environment, it is the basis of the Application model that Macintosh has used since Day 1.
Addendum to my rant:
Windows way of looking at it: if it isn't there, then it must be gone. A.k.a. if a tree falls in the woods, and you weren't there to hear it, the tree didn't fall.
Macintosh way of looking at it: if it isn't there, I might come back upon the users request. A.k.a. if a tree falls in the woods, and you weren't there to hear it, the tree did in fact fall, and kill a squirrel.
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
I disagree with that statement completely. The job of the application and the job of the window are two separate jobs. The job of the application is to control what is going on, and the interaction of the user with that specific task. The job of the window is to give the view of the application.
Although that is a very simplified way of looking at the Windowing environment, it is the basis of the Application model that Macintosh has used since Day 1.
...
I agree thoroughly.
Additionally, although that is a very simplified way of looking
at the Windowing environment, it is something a user can grasp
immediately. (If not utterly disturbed by using Windows(TM)
windowing scheme.
I will also say that I agree that all mac apps should uniformly obey the behavior where quit and close are different actions, but I don't find it a cardinal sin when a single window app combines quit and close. One such example is System Preferences, which, I think, prior to 10.2 required a quit, but now can be closed like a window.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I will also say that I agree that all mac apps should uniformly obey the behavior where quit and close are different actions, but I don't find it a cardinal sin when a single window app combines quit and close. One such example is System Preferences, which, I think, prior to 10.2 required a quit, but now can be closed like a window.
Hmmm, you make a valid argument (especially bringing up System Preferences). I just think, for your average application, there should be separate Close and Quit.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
...
If you are using an application that uses a single window, and offers no capacity for opening a window other than the single window it uses, there is no reason to close the window other than to quit the application.
...
Personally i got used to this *policy* of sometime this and sometime
that, though i think it is plain wrong.
iPhoto is a very nasty example of bad, unlogical
and inconsistent behaviour imo.
Cmd-W quits iPhoto, but if you read the menu entry
under File there is written "Close" aside Cmd-W.
Close what, one can ask, the frontmost window,
the entire app, what???
This is plain false terminology, is it not?
If the definition of "single window app" implies
"no more window than just exactly one"
isn't a "single window app" in this narrow definition.
At least it is no more a "single window app" than, say,
iTunes. iTunes does what, if you perform CMD-W?
Originally posted by Splinemodel
While you make plenty of sense, you also are forcing your argument. If you are using an application that uses a single window, and offers no capacity for opening a window other than the single window it uses, there is no reason to close the window other than to quit the application.
The inability to call a new window from the menubar is the result of a design flaw by the author...it should be disallowed in the UI guidelines. Every OS X app should have at least one window open at all times prior to quitting...the menubar is the parent window in an MDI sense.
Originally posted by Eugene
Every OS X app should have at least one window open at all times prior to quitting
Why?
...the menubar is the parent window in an MDI sense.
I strongly disagree. We're fortunate enough not to have MDI on Mac OS.
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
iPhoto is a very nasty example of bad, unlogical
and inconsistent behaviour imo.
Cmd-W quits iPhoto, but if you read the menu entry
under File there is written "Close" aside Cmd-W.
Close what, one can ask, the frontmost window,
the entire app, what???
This is plain false terminology, is it not?
I don't know about the iLife '06 version, but the previous version of iPhoto wasn't even a single-window app. In fact it wasn't just one app, but at least two! When you ordered prints, it would bring up a separate app and consequently a second window.