...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...
This is why I like Cmd-W quitting the app if it has no windows. If I WANT to have the app still running and hanging around, I'll Cmd-H or minimize it, and it should have a window associated with it (other wise I would have to spawn a new window when I want to do something with that app).
That's the purpose of Cmd-H which I DO use. I want the app around, but just out of sight, minimize the windows associated with that app or just Cmd-H it.
Actually I've waaay confused myself here. Let me try to dig myself out of this one.
1.In my workflow I want some apps to quit on cmd-w but not others. The key is whether it is important in that app to open a new window.
Let's take Photoshop. If I cmd-w all windows, I want Photoshop to remain active. This is because this is a case where opening a new window is a normal and sensible part of the workflow. I want Photoshop to remain active because I'd need to come back and open a new window later on. Same as Dreamweaver, where I'd need to come back to open the new window, whether the new window is a blank page or opening an existing page. Only if I'm really finished then I'll cmd-q Photoshop or Dreamweaver.
Let's take Word. If I cmd-w all windows, I want Word to remain active. Because if I want to continue later, I'd open a new window. If I'm really done then I'll cmd-q Word.
Now let's take iCal, iPhoto, iTunes and System Preferences. You never "open a new window" in this case, you only open the application itself, and only one main window is used. So in this case cmd-w should quit the app. [iTunes is a bit of a weird one in itself because I only ever want one iTunes window but you can spawn multiple windows in iTunes which to me is really weird].
cmd-h and minimize is only important to me if i want active windows to hang around. minimize if i want it to kind of hang around, cmd-h if i want it to hang around but want it instantly out of my sight.
2.Memory management
Hi Voxy, to me, I cringe looking at having all those apps open and eating up precious precious ram (though it looks really cool on the Dock bar). I'd rather have all my main apps I am using open, and let them have the RAM they need. Apps I only use say once in an hour or so, I'd kill it to free up memory. On most decent installs of WinXP2 and I'm sure with 10.4.x re-opening the app is quite fast because it is cached somehow (I don't know how exactly). So again, I'd rather kill apps I'm not actively using and keep the main memory for the apps I'm intensely using. I know I'm not alone in this, some users take great joy in killing Dashboard (preventing it from EVER loading or just not loading at the start) so that it doesn't suck up RAM until it's really really needed.
Sunilraman, I think you've just still got some "bad habit" hangover from using Windows:
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Now let's take iCal, iPhoto, iTunes and System Preferences.
Only one of those is actually a single-window app: System Preferences. All the others are multiple window apps, it's just that they have one main window. (whereas you wouldn't say that Word has any main window).
Also, iTunes uses less cpu if you leave it playing but close all its windows. (less than if you just hide it).
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
[iTunes is a bit of a weird one in itself because I only ever want one iTunes window but you can spawn multiple windows in iTunes which to me is really weird].
I use multiple windows in iTunes. When I browse the store, I like to use a bigger sized window than the rest of the time. Rather than have to resize the window upon loading/unloading the store, I can just open it in its own, bigger window.
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Hi Voxy, to me, I cringe looking at having all those apps open and eating up precious precious ram (though it looks really cool on the Dock bar). I'd rather have all my main apps I am using open, and let them have the RAM they need.
You clearly do not understand virtual memory. The only point of quitting an app you are not using is if it uses up CPU even when it isn't doing anything (like Word). It is perfectly possible to have an app open but for it to have absolutely nothing in physical RAM; if needed, the OS will have swapped it all to disk.
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.
I've definitely misunderstood at least one of you. Eugene is saying that an app should always have at least one window open? That doesn't make sense to me.
I've definitely misunderstood at least one of you. Eugene is saying that an app should always have at least one window open? That doesn't make sense to me.
You misunderstood me. I'm saying the Mac OS menubar should be treated as an app's parent window. Only when you choose to get rid of the menubar/parent window should the app quit.
I'm saying the Mac OS menubar should be treated as an app's parent window. Only when you choose to get rid of the menubar/parent window should the app quit.
Oh, O.K.
But why complicate the matter by using terminology that doesn't fit? We're not using Microsoft Windows.
Why should a window be considered a parent? The App is the thing that is in charge, not the window. Additionally, in Mac OS, the menubar is not a window. In Windows, to have a menubar, you have to have a window, with its associated close, maximise and minimise buttons. This is where the confusion between window and app is most clear - you've got a window, but if you close it, the app is gone; which is in charge? The window, or the app?
You misunderstood me. I'm saying the Mac OS menubar should be treated as an app's parent window. Only when you choose to get rid of the menubar/parent window should the app quit.
Sunilraman, I think you've just still got some "bad habit" hangover from using Windows:
Yeah, when you kind of grow up on Win95, Win98, Win2000, WinXP, some old habits are hard to break I only came in hard into OS X 2001-2004...
Originally posted by Mr. H You clearly do not understand virtual memory....It is perfectly possible to have an app open but for it to have absolutely nothing in physical RAM; if needed, the OS will have swapped it all to disk.
Another bad Windows habit, I guess, I never trusted Windows to handle this properly. Apps in the background would still occupy both virtual and physical memory. Mac OS 10.3 going on to 10.4 probably does the memory management much better, and maybe WinXP2 does things better as well.
But how does Mac OS X handle apps in the background? How would it know when to free up all the RAM it takes and page it to disk? When another app is actively requesting more RAM? I don't *trust* the OS to know how to do this properly.
edit: OMFG this probably goes back to my DOS days when you had to look at "largest contiguous memory block" available when you had to run games and so on. You had to make sure XMS (?) or something like that was loaded, then load the drivers (eg. sound card) and then check and see that the "largest contiguous memory block" was enough to run your game.
Another bad Windows habit, I guess, I never trusted Windows to handle this properly. Apps in the background would still occupy both virtual and physical memory.
Indeed. In my experience, Windows (any flavour) is worse at handling lots of open apps than is OS X.
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
But how does Mac OS X handle apps in the background? How would it know when to free up all the RAM it takes and page it to disk? When another app is actively requesting more RAM? I don't *trust* the OS to know how to do this properly.
VM is handled by the Kernel, so in the case of OS X, it's a matter of trusting BSD UNIX VM. I'm sure most Mac users would agree that it is very good.
There are a few different approaches to deciding which memory to swap to disk if physical memory is required. If you want to know more, just head over here.
...VM is handled by the Kernel, so in the case of OsX, its a matter of trusting BSD UNIX VM. I'm sure most Mac users would agree that it is very good...
Well, VoxBarbara attests to being able to have lots of apps open at once on her G3 and have things "snappy"............
...VM is handled by the Kernel, so in the case of OsX, its a matter of trusting BSD UNIX VM. I'm sure most Mac users would agree that it is very good...
Well, Vox Barbara attests to being able to have lots of apps open at once on her G3 and have things "snappy"............
*snappy*, uhm, i didn't use that particular word.
But i asure you, it is plenty fast enough to achieve
Now let's take iCal, iPhoto, iTunes and System Preferences. You never "open a new window" in this case, you only open the application itself, and only one main window is used. So in this case cmd-w should quit the app. [iTunes is a bit of a weird one in itself because I only ever want one iTunes window but you can spawn multiple windows in iTunes which to me is really weird].
...
That's right, but just for consistency's sake i
wish CMD-W would be disabled in, well, *single
window environments" like iTunes, iPhoto and the like.
CMD-W should close a window.
CMD-Q should quit the App.
No exceptions.
Developers should apply this for all Apps. That would
Personally, what bothers me the most is that Spotlight windows are owned by nothing. The menu bar doesn't change from whatever app you were using before Spotlight came up, so it's essentially useless. As I think John Siracusa said, Spotlight windows exist in a no man's land.
Edit: Some possible solutions for this would be to make Spotlight its own "application" complete with menu bar, or have all Spotlight windows owned by the Finder.
Personally, what bothers me the most is that Spotlight windows are owned by nothing. The menu bar doesn't change from whatever app you were using before Spotlight came up, so it's essentially useless. As I think John Siracusa said, Spotlight windows exist in a no man's land.
Edit: Some possible solutions for this would be to make Spotlight its own "application" complete with menu bar, or have all Spotlight windows owned by the Finder.
Yep. I wish Spotlight was its own application. Heck, even something as simple as Software Update is an application, why can't Spotlight be?
Comments
...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...
This is why I like Cmd-W quitting the app if it has no windows. If I WANT to have the app still running and hanging around, I'll Cmd-H or minimize it, and it should have a window associated with it (other wise I would have to spawn a new window when I want to do something with that app).
That's the purpose of Cmd-H which I DO use. I want the app around, but just out of sight, minimize the windows associated with that app or just Cmd-H it.
1.In my workflow I want some apps to quit on cmd-w but not others. The key is whether it is important in that app to open a new window.
Let's take Photoshop. If I cmd-w all windows, I want Photoshop to remain active. This is because this is a case where opening a new window is a normal and sensible part of the workflow. I want Photoshop to remain active because I'd need to come back and open a new window later on. Same as Dreamweaver, where I'd need to come back to open the new window, whether the new window is a blank page or opening an existing page. Only if I'm really finished then I'll cmd-q Photoshop or Dreamweaver.
Let's take Word. If I cmd-w all windows, I want Word to remain active. Because if I want to continue later, I'd open a new window. If I'm really done then I'll cmd-q Word.
Now let's take iCal, iPhoto, iTunes and System Preferences. You never "open a new window" in this case, you only open the application itself, and only one main window is used. So in this case cmd-w should quit the app. [iTunes is a bit of a weird one in itself because I only ever want one iTunes window but you can spawn multiple windows in iTunes which to me is really weird].
cmd-h and minimize is only important to me if i want active windows to hang around. minimize if i want it to kind of hang around, cmd-h if i want it to hang around but want it instantly out of my sight.
2.Memory management
Hi Voxy, to me, I cringe looking at having all those apps open and eating up precious precious ram (though it looks really cool on the Dock bar). I'd rather have all my main apps I am using open, and let them have the RAM they need. Apps I only use say once in an hour or so, I'd kill it to free up memory. On most decent installs of WinXP2 and I'm sure with 10.4.x re-opening the app is quite fast because it is cached somehow (I don't know how exactly). So again, I'd rather kill apps I'm not actively using and keep the main memory for the apps I'm intensely using. I know I'm not alone in this, some users take great joy in killing Dashboard (preventing it from EVER loading or just not loading at the start) so that it doesn't suck up RAM until it's really really needed.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Now let's take iCal, iPhoto, iTunes and System Preferences.
Only one of those is actually a single-window app: System Preferences. All the others are multiple window apps, it's just that they have one main window. (whereas you wouldn't say that Word has any main window).
Also, iTunes uses less cpu if you leave it playing but close all its windows. (less than if you just hide it).
Originally posted by sunilraman
[iTunes is a bit of a weird one in itself because I only ever want one iTunes window but you can spawn multiple windows in iTunes which to me is really weird].
I use multiple windows in iTunes. When I browse the store, I like to use a bigger sized window than the rest of the time. Rather than have to resize the window upon loading/unloading the store, I can just open it in its own, bigger window.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Hi Voxy, to me, I cringe looking at having all those apps open and eating up precious precious ram (though it looks really cool on the Dock bar). I'd rather have all my main apps I am using open, and let them have the RAM they need.
You clearly do not understand virtual memory. The only point of quitting an app you are not using is if it uses up CPU even when it isn't doing anything (like Word). It is perfectly possible to have an app open but for it to have absolutely nothing in physical RAM; if needed, the OS will have swapped it all to disk.
Originally posted by Eugene
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.
Absolutely. Thank you.
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
Absolutely. Thank you.
I've definitely misunderstood at least one of you. Eugene is saying that an app should always have at least one window open? That doesn't make sense to me.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I've definitely misunderstood at least one of you. Eugene is saying that an app should always have at least one window open? That doesn't make sense to me.
You misunderstood me. I'm saying the Mac OS menubar should be treated as an app's parent window. Only when you choose to get rid of the menubar/parent window should the app quit.
Originally posted by Eugene
I'm saying the Mac OS menubar should be treated as an app's parent window. Only when you choose to get rid of the menubar/parent window should the app quit.
Oh, O.K.
But why complicate the matter by using terminology that doesn't fit? We're not using Microsoft Windows.
Why should a window be considered a parent? The App is the thing that is in charge, not the window. Additionally, in Mac OS, the menubar is not a window. In Windows, to have a menubar, you have to have a window, with its associated close, maximise and minimise buttons. This is where the confusion between window and app is most clear - you've got a window, but if you close it, the app is gone; which is in charge? The window, or the app?
Originally posted by Eugene
You misunderstood me. I'm saying the Mac OS menubar should be treated as an app's parent window. Only when you choose to get rid of the menubar/parent window should the app quit.
Well.
Sunilraman, I think you've just still got some "bad habit" hangover from using Windows:
Yeah, when you kind of grow up on Win95, Win98, Win2000, WinXP, some old habits are hard to break
Originally posted by Mr. H You clearly do not understand virtual memory....It is perfectly possible to have an app open but for it to have absolutely nothing in physical RAM; if needed, the OS will have swapped it all to disk.
Another bad Windows habit, I guess, I never trusted Windows to handle this properly. Apps in the background would still occupy both virtual and physical memory. Mac OS 10.3 going on to 10.4 probably does the memory management much better, and maybe WinXP2 does things better as well.
But how does Mac OS X handle apps in the background? How would it know when to free up all the RAM it takes and page it to disk? When another app is actively requesting more RAM?
edit: OMFG this probably goes back to my DOS days when you had to look at "largest contiguous memory block" available when you had to run games and so on. You had to make sure XMS (?) or something like that was loaded, then load the drivers (eg. sound card) and then check and see that the "largest contiguous memory block" was enough to run your game.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Another bad Windows habit, I guess, I never trusted Windows to handle this properly. Apps in the background would still occupy both virtual and physical memory.
Indeed. In my experience, Windows (any flavour) is worse at handling lots of open apps than is OS X.
Originally posted by sunilraman
But how does Mac OS X handle apps in the background? How would it know when to free up all the RAM it takes and page it to disk? When another app is actively requesting more RAM?
VM is handled by the Kernel, so in the case of OS X, it's a matter of trusting BSD UNIX VM. I'm sure most Mac users would agree that it is very good.
There are a few different approaches to deciding which memory to swap to disk if physical memory is required. If you want to know more, just head over here.
edit: fixed spelling mistakes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONFIG.SYS
device = c: \\dos\\himem.sys
device = c: \\dos\\emm386.exe umb
dos = high,umb
devicehigh = c: \\windows\\mouse.sys
Ah, so many memories......... I never could bloody finish any of the Space Quest or Kings Quest games. Too bloody hard!!
...VM is handled by the Kernel, so in the case of OsX, its a matter of trusting BSD UNIX VM. I'm sure most Mac users would agree that it is very good...
Well, VoxBarbara attests to being able to have lots of apps open at once on her G3 and have things "snappy"............
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by Mr. H
...VM is handled by the Kernel, so in the case of OsX, its a matter of trusting BSD UNIX VM. I'm sure most Mac users would agree that it is very good...
Well, Vox Barbara attests to being able to have lots of apps open at once on her G3 and have things "snappy"............
But i asure you, it is plenty fast enough to achieve
*normal* tasks.
Originally posted by sunilraman
...
Now let's take iCal, iPhoto, iTunes and System Preferences. You never "open a new window" in this case, you only open the application itself, and only one main window is used. So in this case cmd-w should quit the app. [iTunes is a bit of a weird one in itself because I only ever want one iTunes window but you can spawn multiple windows in iTunes which to me is really weird].
...
That's right, but just for consistency's sake i
wish CMD-W would be disabled in, well, *single
window environments" like iTunes, iPhoto and the like.
CMD-W should close a window.
CMD-Q should quit the App.
No exceptions.
Developers should apply this for all Apps. That would
be logical and consistent one and for all.
My humble opinion.
Originally posted by Zenga
Can Vista Beta be installed on Intels MACs?
Yes. However, there's some minor issues. It won't work unless you delete the 200 MB EFI partition, which causes some problems.
Personally, what bothers me the most is that Spotlight windows are owned by nothing. The menu bar doesn't change from whatever app you were using before Spotlight came up, so it's essentially useless. As I think John Siracusa said, Spotlight windows exist in a no man's land.
Edit: Some possible solutions for this would be to make Spotlight its own "application" complete with menu bar, or have all Spotlight windows owned by the Finder.
Originally posted by yadda yadda yadda
All this talk about the OS X menu bar and such...
Personally, what bothers me the most is that Spotlight windows are owned by nothing. The menu bar doesn't change from whatever app you were using before Spotlight came up, so it's essentially useless. As I think John Siracusa said, Spotlight windows exist in a no man's land.
Edit: Some possible solutions for this would be to make Spotlight its own "application" complete with menu bar, or have all Spotlight windows owned by the Finder.
Yep. I wish Spotlight was its own application. Heck, even something as simple as Software Update is an application, why can't Spotlight be?