15 Things Apple Should Change in Mac OS X 936
richi writes "Two of Computerworld's top operating systems editors, a Mac expert and a Windows expert, compare notes on what Apple should reconsider as it develops Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. Mac OS X 10.4, or Tiger, is (in their opinion) a noticeably better operating system than XP or Vista. But it is not perfect. OS X has its own quirks and flaws, and they set out to nail down some of the 'proud nails' for the next release." From the article: "7. Inconsistent User Interface. Open iTunes, Safari and Mail. All three of these programs are Apple's own, and they're among the ones most likely to be used by Mac OS X users. So why do all three of them look different? Safari, like several other Apple-made apps such as the Finder and Address Book, uses a brushed-metal look. iTunes sports a flat gun-metal gray scheme and flat non-shiny scroll bars. Mail is somewhere in between: no brushed metal, lots of gun-metal gray, and the traditional shiny blue scroll bars. Apple is supposed to be the king of good UI, and in many areas, it is. But three widely used apps from the same company with a different look? Sometimes consistency isn't the hobgoblin of little minds."
That's good and all... (Score:5, Insightful)
12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What I think they should change... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like OS X, why not install Linux on that machine? Then at least your configuration files will be where you expect them.
Re:Window Management. Maximize? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've dug around in the system preferences a bit, and looked on google as well, and can't seem to find any way of changing this behaviour. Would an option to change behaviour be so hard? As silly as it may sound, its been one of the few annoying things thats really been keeping me from using OS X in any serious manner.
NUmber 10 is flat out silly (Score:4, Insightful)
I really don't know... (Score:5, Insightful)
looking different (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because you don't want to click 'reply' when you want to buy a song?
UI (in)consistency? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, UI look in Apple applications is not consistent, but the behavior is in majority cases consistent. And that is what counts. While working, you do not notice whether the app is brushed metal, Aqua or grayish plastic.
It is just my observation...
The actual quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
IIRC, the actual quote they were going for is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and the point he was making is that small-minded people tend to get bogged down worrying about consistency where it doesn't really matter. In other words, if your list of biggest gripes includes items like this, get a life.
--MarkusQ
7. Motif is not user interface, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NUmber 10 is flat out silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What I think they should change... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going through the same thing. I've been using my Macs to do video editing and as a user I'm fine, but getting down to the system can be a little confusing. Just roll up your sleeves and let go of your preconceived notions of how things should be. Eventually you'll get it. I've actually had more luck with the Java examples than some of the other system stuff, but mostly because I'm not that familiar with Apache.
Re:Window Management. Maximize? (Score:1, Insightful)
I prefer to be able to see all my open windows at a glance and fullscreen mode blocks that. I can see how it might useful on a small screen (like on small laptop screens or older displays) but on larger screens it just hogs up all the screen space.
Re:What I think they should change... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What I think they should change... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is because you're unfamiliar with OSX.
I hate the fact that I have no idea what the fuck is going on behind the scenes with the Mac.
Also because you're unfamiliar with OSX.
I really don't like the fact that I *could* do stuff on the CLI but I can never find out how.
Also because you're unfamiliar with OSX.
Here, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: OSX isn't Linux or Windows. It works differently. As a result, you might actually have to *learn something about it*. Clearly what you want is for OSX to be exactly like Linux or Windows. But the very fact that it *isn't* is what makes it attractive to so many people. So get your learn on and quit bitching, ffs.
PS. I'm not an OSX user. But people who bitch about a product because it isn't what *they* want it to be really tick me off, especially if it's clear they haven't bothered to try and adapt. I'd have the same problem with a Windows user who switched to Linux and then whined about how they couldn't use regedit.
Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the comment about printer support... plug printer into Airport, press print in any application on any computer on the network and then select printer from the bonjour printer list. Easy. Want a direct connection, skip the part about the Airport.
They had a point with the look and feel, but to be honest it doesn't bother me as perhaps it should. And cut and paste is just not the mac way of doing things... we drag and drop EVERYTHING and Expose makes that easy.
I'm sure given time I could come up with 15 things that annoy me about OS X, but their gripes seem trivial at best. How about disconnection from network drives slowing down the WHOLE system? Or the way the firewall settings are in 'Sharing'. Trivial things that annoy me are that fink hasn't been absorbed into the default install and X11 is still concidered an optional extra - being able to install quality free software like Scribus/The Gimp from a Synaptic like interface could really open peoples eyes to OSS.
One more (Score:4, Insightful)
I get the impression that the folks in Cupertino have never tried to use an X11 app with a one-button mouse. God damn that's a painful experience.
Re:What I think they should change... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny thing, I've had to do neither, and I know I'm not alone in that.
Re:What I think they should change... (Score:5, Insightful)
Applications live in the Applications or Utilities folders. Support files? Depends on how much of a sadist the programmers were, but they're generally bundled within the .app bundles, or show up in ~/Library/Application Support/ Preference files are almost always in ~/Library/Preferences/ like you'd expect. It's far better than Windows' insistence on *hiding* user files in %AppData%.
System Configuration options? You mean the ones that are accessed from the always-available System Preferences? You seriously didn't look very hard, did you? Hell, for deeper hacking go READ osxhints.com.
Why do you care what's going on "behind the scenes" so much? Go get a $free developer account at Apple, download all the Developer Tools, and start READING.
Which files? Again, do some READING.
Honestly, almost all of your objections stem from the fact that you haven't put a single bit of effort to educate yourself about Mac OS X. You claim you're "quite comfy" with Linux and Windows, but you sure as hell didn't get that knowledge from osmosis. I only use Windows at work, and I know q bit more about some of the guts of the way it works because I did some READING.
What about combo boxes? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Window Management (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing. Linux UIs freely borrow great ideas from many sources. Microsoft is famous for grabbing other peoples' good ideas. Isn't it time for Apple to learn that even their best ideas can be improved over time, even if the improvement was first implimented by another company?
TW
Re:12. Documents and App Instances on the Dock (Score:3, Insightful)
Open up your HD and drag the applications folder to the dock. If you click onit, it opens the folder. If you right-click on it you get a contextual menu of everything it contains.
I know that some people use spotlight. both are just as fast for me though if my hand is on the mouse anyways I will use the mouse.
Re:I really don't know... (Score:2, Insightful)
Please Use Windows' Focus Model and Key Nav (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, keyboard navigation is useless. Why would anyone want to remember all of those shortcuts?
I just know people are going to pop up and explain that I can do everything that I'm complaining about but don't bother because it's just not "as simple as possible and not simpler".
It's HARDER than Windows. When you click on an app in the application does not appear, only the menu bar get's focus. That's very confusing. So why not just switch to the Windows focus model that everyone is already familar with?
Re:Some of these are just ignorant... (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the reader peeves... (Score:5, Insightful)
If one doesn't want to be pestered by that dialog, just choose the Shut Down command while holding down the Option key. Easy squeezy.
Come to think of it, that's a good bit of advice to follow whenever you find yourself wishing something behaved differently: Try the Option key. It won't always make a difference, but often, it does.
Re:WTF ? No F2 ? (Score:5, Insightful)
You hit F2 in Windows to rename files? And that's supposed to be intuitive?
Re:Window Management (Score:5, Insightful)
As with most things in life, I use things because I want them to do what I want, not because I want to do what they want me to. Like my OS. Even if it's all fucked up, I want it to work how I expect. There shouldn't be a learning curve with your desktop, just like there is no learning curve on a real-life desktop. You don't reach for that pen and suddenly it shoots off 50cm to the right, starts hovering in mid-air with a weird blue glow around it, quickly followed by all the contents of my desk miraculously re-arranging themselves 20cm above the top of the desk, Dana Barrat style.
The problem isn't that the users don't "get" OSX. OSX is just an operating system. You're talking about it like it's the hardest quantum theory any mere mortal could never hope to understand. I'm pretty sure I have the cognitive ability to understand what the buttons do. I just don't think "optimise" is such a great idea for resizing windows. I want to resize the window, but the UI has to step in to do it for me, as I can't be trusted? Is that it? If I want to make a window as big as my screen, shit, I paid for the OS and the software in question - I should be able to do that if I so wish.
I'm not having a go at you, I just think that you're arguing from your own perspective. I've been using computers for decades, and there ARE reasons you want to maximise/minimise your UI however you please. You blame it on the apps, but doesn't change the fact the GUI is not allowing you to fix it manually. If I wanted an authoritarian figure telling me I, or some software I've bought, is doing something stupid, I'd get some input from my wife. I don't need my GUI to tell me what to do, snatching my balls in the process :)
Re:Window Management (Score:4, Insightful)
They could make a border all the way around windows, but it would make for a much heavier design, like Windows and Linux has. Is the feature worth compromising the design for? Particularly when Zoom does the common resizing task for you anyway.
Re:Some of these are just ignorant... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've discovered that the primary roadblock for most people is that they assume that if you can't do it the same way you do on Windows, then there's no way to do it.
This is as much a problem for skilled users such as developers and administrators as it is for folks who can barely operate a mouse.
Re:Please Use Windows' Focus Model and Key Nav (Score:2, Insightful)
Because its NOT Windoze you fool!
I like consistancy as much as the next guy, but telling Apple to use a model that is Windows, which has their own UI issues, is a bit like telling Ford to make their cars like GM does, aye?
I use it all, Macs, Windoze, KDE, GNome all of them. Each have the pluses and minuses. Rather than bitch like a baby, what did I do? Uhmmm I spent the sum total of about 30 minutes reading through a quick start guide for each. Guess what happened? I learned their pradigm! Hot damn, imagine that, reading! Who knew it would be a usefull skill!
So get a clue, dust off those littte gray cells, and actualy fucking learn something you fucking ludite!
Re:Some of these are just ignorant... (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything, option+enter or something should rename, but I'm a staunch believer that this design flaw should be fixed in Finder.
Re:Window Management. Maximize? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF ? No F2 ? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It's not supposed to be intuitive. It's supposed to be useful.
There are quite a few really useful Windows short cuts that aren't exactly easy to find. They're there for power users more than they're there for "regular" users. Once you learn to use them, they're very useful. I'm sure someone can find Mac OS X shortcuts that aren't exactly easy to discover but make certain tasks far easier.
Unfortunately Windows makes it painfully difficult to discover these shortcuts (they're not listed as accelerators in the right-click menu or in the corresponding menu in the application menu) but that's a different complaint.
Re:What I think they should change... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One more (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that a lot of X11 apps require a THIRD mouse button. On a two-button mouse you can at least click both buttons to simulate a third one. The X11 server for OS X will also allow you to option-click to simulate a third button click.
But then, let's suppose you're using an image editing program that makes liberal use of combining modifier keys with left clicks in order to access extra functionality. There's no way you can use this stuff on a Mac with a one-button mouse because option-left click isn't option-left click, it's middle click.
Even more annoying is the #$@#% Mighty Mouse, which has buttons out the wazoo but was designed in such a boneheaded way that it's no different from a one-button mouse from the perspective of someone who uses UNIX apps on their Mac. There's no way to left and right click at the same time, and none of the additional buttons register as a third mouse button to the operating system.
I realize that having only one mouse button is nice from various high-and-lofty perspectives, but there at least needs to be the option to buy a MacBook with more than one mouse button for those of us who really do need it for our day-to-day work. I imagine that just that would make a lot of Unix geeks a lot more willing to move over to the Mac. Right now I have a Powerbook and for the most part I love it, but it's supreme pain in the ass that I have to carry a mouse everywhere I go to be able to do some tasks.
Shift Selecting (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF ? No F2 ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Window Management (Score:3, Insightful)
Except in iTunes, it goes between whatever size iTunes was and a tiny player window. In other apps, it makes the app full screen. In yet other apps, it toggles between two different sizes, neither of which is right.
The list of offenders includes Camino and all those expensive turds Adobe sells (which break almost all the rules of OS X consistency).
Then, apparently, Apple's applications are "turds" as well, because they are just as inconsistent.
Furthermore, if programmers are frequently inconsistent about how they implement something, then there is something wrong with the API. It's perfectly possible to come up with an API that would ensure that the green button works consistently, it's just that OSX fails to use such an API. So, no matter which way you look at it, it's Apple's fault.
Personally, I think they should simply make the green button "maximize"; that's what most users want; I never have a use for "change size to be something the application thinks may be a good size".
Re:7. Motif is not user interface, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't feel that the "look" part of "look and feel" matters to a UI? You think that "feel" is all that defines a UI?
"Each of these applications look different because they are different."
The point is that they are gratuitously different having nothing to do with their function.
"If an application is intuitive and responsive, like iTunes, Safari, and Mail, it should look different from other applications."
Why? How does making the apps different for the sake of difference improve usability or intuition?
Since when is iTunes "responsive". It's slow as a dog.
Re:What I think they should change... (Score:5, Insightful)
* I can ssh into my Linux and FreeBSD boxen and use Apple's X11 to seamlessly work with those (in OSX 10.3 use ssh -CX, in 10.4 better use ssh -CY).
* Via VirtualPC (or Parallels for those with Intel Macs), I can use the very few Windows apps I need and test my stuff in IE.
* Considering the former two points, I can use Linux apps, Windows apps and Macintosh apps all at the same time on the same screen, with good performance, and without ever having to reboot to change environments.
* You have a complete set of your *nix toolset, so that you can scp, grep, tail, sed, rsync, whois... all you want.
As for your complaint that the config files aren't 'where they belong', I think this is intentional so that you don't go and edit lots of stuff and expect the machine to do the same as your Linux box would. It IS a different animal after all, and as long as cron works as well as it does (for my backup), I'll gladly leave the server stuff to my real BSD boxen (read: I haven't found anything I want to do with the Powerbook I'd need to edit config files for).
OSX is far from perfect, but gives me a good mix of having the most things I need available while letting me conveniently access everything else. So when you're like me and use your fair share of Mac apps, you get the best of all three worlds.
Re:Window Management (Score:2, Insightful)
Please, if just one thing could be changed... (Score:3, Insightful)
In Windows every program recognizes Home/End, and takes you to the beginning or the end of the line. Combining this with the shift-key to select text, makes the Mac even worse.
Re:Please Use Windows' Focus Model and Key Nav (Score:5, Insightful)
That, to me, was the epiphany that there is a Windows way, and there is a Mac way. The windows way requires you to know how Windows stores things internally, and what its design philosophy is. Everything needs to be done manually, especially when it comes moving data between apps. I used to think that the coolest thing in town was to be able to copy text from one remote terminal to another. Now I know better - there is the Mac way, in which I just do what I want to do. If it's something that ought to be common (enable ftp server? tab through apps? move pictures around?), there is a simple way to do it. As in, brain dead simple 1-2 click operation.
The reason you and I - and presumably a lot of other people - were confused is because we tried to use OS X like WinXP. Don't do that. Start to think that there ought to be a simple way to do it, and then just try it. I've found that that solves 90% of my UI issues.
Worst thing about OSX is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Window Management (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple definitely has a good UI, but they really need to get past the "not invented here" mentality in order to file some of the sharp edges off.
Re:why should I? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you look at '/usr', from the terminal, then everything standard is there, as for everything else there are reasons, you just need to take the time to understand them. As for other stuff most Unix implementations do things slightly differently from each other, some a lot differently (believe me I've worked on a fair number of them, including AIX, HP, Solaris and Linux). In many ways, while MacOS X is built on top of Darwin (BSD Unix derivitive), it is much more than that.
If you are just looking at the Darwin base, then it tries extending Unix into the 21st century providing support for dynamic devices and providing an object-oriented model for the drivers and other aspects of the system. There has been a lot of effort made to support legacy Unix applications, but there is only so much you can do when the needs of 2006 are no longer those of 1978.
On of that there is the graphical desktop environment and they do things a lot differently, but then again this fits in with the 'OS on top of an OS' approach. This is something that dates back from 'NeXT Step'. Sure they don't use the X11 standard, but sometimes you have to go your own way. BTW it should be noted that KDE, CDE, Gnome and other Unix graphical desktop environments rarely have an commanility beyond the fact they all use X11.
There are points when you have to appreciate what you know is no longer valid. The technology field is constantly changing, so if you can't stand change, then it will be really hard for you.
Re:Some of these are just ignorant... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a design WTF in itself.
Enter is a primary action key, has been since people were using VT100 terminals. When you press Enter in the context of some interface resource, it should perform the primary action associated with that resource: navigate into a folder. Open a document. Launch a program.
Instead it allows the user to modify the resource name? That's not a primary action!
Honestly, I can't blame Mike for not knowing about this. It's not like the "Rename" item in Finder's menus mentions that Enter is a hotkey for that action. Actually, it's not like the Finder menus even have a "Rename" item.
Re:WTF ? No F2 ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I know about command-O. I'm saying it would make much more UI sense for rename (the rarely-used function) to require a two-keystroke command, and for the keystroke that usually means "execute whatever's currently selected" to open the file.
Yes, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a Powerbook, and I don't want to plug a damn external mouse into it. I want to use the touchpad, and I want said touchpad to be more useful... by including a second freakin' mouse button. I get tired of being thwarted by the one button disciples, whose reasons for opposing the second button seem to be variants on the theme of "but we've always done it this way". It's a lot easier for people who only want to use button to just ignore any other buttons, than it is for me to have to go find some software utility to simulate the other buttons.
And don't start with "you can just use Cmd-click" (or whatever the key combo is) to simulate the second button. Sometimes I'm doing something with my other hand - um, y'know, like holding my coffee cup. Yeah, that's it.
Sean
Re:Filename Incompatibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Doing anything else results in horrible problems, because different systems will disagree on exactly what strings are equivalent and as you noticed this results in extremely confusing incompatabilities.
How the string is displayed and distinguished to the user is strictly a GUI problem. Thinking you can fix it by somehow magically making the hard-to-display strings "illegal" is burying your head in the sand. The GUI will have to be able to display arbitrary strings anyway, as the program may produce them without actually reading a file name.
All you morons who think "case independence" is a good thing should listen up as well.
Re:Window Management (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hard for users when companies dictate how users are allowed to use their product. What is user-friendly for one person is a total PITA for another.
Re:Please, if just one thing could be changed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Window Management (Score:4, Insightful)
As Picasso said, "good artists copy, great artists steal." Part of what advances knowledge is building on that which came before, and Apple would do well to understand that.
Yeah, okay. Hopefully Apple knows their UI is not perfect and is willing to borrow to make it better. They seem willing as they're incorporating virtual desktops and many other features from other systems.
Case in point - it took them *forever* to produce a two-button mouse, even though the rest of the world had long before learned the advantages of such a device.
Yeah, and by watching others Apple was also able to see all the disadvantages of such a system. Usability experts the world around wish they could go back in time and make one button mice the standard and simplify their lives. One of the most common interface problems is that people click the wrong button in some instance, or both buttons simultaneously with random results. For novice users, a single button is a much, much, much better option. More than that, the end results of the standardization on one or multiple button mice makes a big difference on the software ecosystem. Given that novice users are better with one button, lets look at advanced users. On Windows and on OS X I use the same four button trackball with a scroll wheel. On both systems the primary button does the same job and the third and fourth buttons are user assignable to tasks I commonly use. The only difference is the second mouse button. Is it more usable on Windows or OS X? On OS X, it is assigned to a series of services and scripts I chose. It is up to me to decide, on a per-app or and/or global basis what is available. On Windows, this app is full of functions that the application designer chose, many of which I never want or use. Even in applications like Wordpad, this key is assigned to functions I will never, ever use, while in OS X and textedit, this button provides me with word counts, grammar checker, translation between languages, some perl scripts I commonly apply to text, and other options I've chosen. Basically, it frees up one more button for me to assign, and I need it because otherwise I'd need a mouse with 5 buttons. My third button activates expose to quickly choose apps and my fourth button activates my dashboard widgets or my virtual desktops, depending on the context. So for me, a power user, the one button default gives me one more useful button.
And what else does this affect? Have you ever used scripting applications, or alternative input devices like tablets, braille boards, spoken interfaces, etc.? Because OS X only has one button by default, all developers code to that standard and all functions are available to users of all these devices. With Windows applications, it is not uncommon for poor developers to place functionality for an application only in a right-click menu, making it difficult or impossible to access using these alternative interfaces. It encourages poor development practices.
Okay, so now lets look at Apple's multi button mouse. They have learned from the mistakes of others. By default, it works as a one button mouse so all the advantages listed above apply. In addition it works as a multi-button mouse for power users. Better yet, this change occurs in software, so a mac in your living room can have a mouse that is one button for the kids and multi-button for the grown ups or experts all without switching and hardware around and automatically set up on a per-account basis. All the benefits with none of the negatives. The only question is what about laptops? Will they make multiple buttons and option there as well? I doubt it, but it is possible. The reason is, when you use a desktop with a mouse, you either have both hands on the keyboard or one on the keyboard and one on the mouse. In the latter configuration, having to use chording with the keyboard slows a user down as they must move their hand. On a laptop, however, both hands are already in place and once you learn how it is (according to usability studies) faster to use the trackpad button with chording than it is to have multiple buttons that make you move your off hand. They might find other ways to use the trackpad to provide this, but I doubt it will be physical buttons.
Re:WTF ? No F2 ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Opening a document can be an extremely expensive operation if the owning application isn't already running (think Photoshop). Opening the WRONG document can be a WASTED extremely expensive operation. When fat-fingering the return/enter keys, I would much rather the Finder toggle me into 'edit filename' mode than have it launch Photoshop.
This philosophy is scattered all around the OS. The more expensive the operation, the more input you need to provide. That applies to dialog boxes with and without default options as well as shortcut keys. Incidentally, this addresses the Shutdown/Restart confirmation complaint as well - both terribly expensive operations (as noted elsewhere, this is avoidable by holding down option key - more input).
Re:Window Management (Score:2, Insightful)
Have a source for that statistic? Didn't think so.
As for your other rant, it's without merit. As I have stated in another post, it would be easy for Apple to split-sensor the single huge-assed button so that it COULD be identified as three buttons, but by default act like a single button. A simple configuration option could solve one of the largest complaints about this issue that has gone on for as many years as Apple has been making laptops. Somehow you seem to think that giving others the option to have more than one button will somehow cause instant death for mac GUI design traditionalists. Trust me, you would be just fine.
If people didn't want more than one mouse button, then why is it that every replacement mouse for a mac have at least 3? Hell, even the mighty mouse has more than one.
Why does Windows have a Maximize screen? (Score:3, Insightful)
No more (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some of these are just ignorant... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's neither intuitive nor counter-intuitive; it's merely a design decision. People with a Windows background might expect enter to open the file, but the millions of people with years of experience with Macs would find it horribly counter to their trained expectations. Intuitive != Windows-esque, especially when Apple has a large long-term customer base with their own set of expectations.
Personally I think F2 is a perverse renaming choice and much prefer enter/return, but that's purely a function of trained background rather than "intuitiveness".
Re:Some of these are just ignorant... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds less like a design flaw and more like personal preferences. There are reasons that command-O is used instead of the enter key (more common action is renaming rather than launching) and I find Windows to be outside what I'd expect based on how people use Windows Explorer.
(It took someone at work to tell me that F2 goes to rename files. F2? Who thought that was obvious?)