b_s-wilk wrote:
The "magic" and unattached Apple menu make is so much more difficult
to train the uninitiated ... and it causes a number of complications
re: what's running?, RAM depletion and file backup.
The Macintosh menus are attached to the top of the display, not to the
windows. Apple had its menus at the top of the screen long before
Microsoft tried to copy the Mac GUI, but changed it a bit so nobody
would notice they were copying, uh, innovating.
Copying is part and parcel of all "innovation." You start with what is
known and hopefully add something useful or improve on the original in
some way. Sometimes more... sometimes less but it's always the way
"invention" progresses. As Apple did with Xerox Smalltalk in
developing the first commercial GUI OS.
Makes more sense to have only ONE menu for each program, instead of
menus for each open window. Microsoft must have come up with that in
their Department of Redundancy Department. Takes up less room to have
top of screen menus rather than ones inside each window. More screen
'real estate' is better. It's also easier to keep programs open even
though windows are closed so you don't have to relaunch over and over.
Says who and what are the meaningful parameters you using when you are
counting?
With all 3 OS's, for meaningful purposes only one menu is being used ...
and is occupying space ... at any time. With multiple windows open, you
just don't have to think about/ fuss about which menu with the Win/Linux
design ... no more than you have to think about or be concerned about
which hand is holding the sandwich that you are eating...
When you really need to know what's running, there's a tiny white
arrow next to each running program in the Dock [my Dock is to the left
and hidden except when I need it]. If you're a micromanager, you can
keep the Activity Monitor open to watch how the visible and invisible
processes are using CPU, real memory, shared memory, private memory
and which ports are in use, including the Activity Monitor's use of
CPU and memory.
As an experienced user using a small or average number of windows you
almost never need to know. But inexperienced users almost ALWAYS need
to know as quickly and as easily as possible and heavy users running
many projects simultaneously have the same issue (and NO... playing pin
the tail on the donkey with the alt tab key through 35 windows is not
really any more efficient than the kid's party game is.).
The Dock came from NeXTSTEP, not as a "catch-up" to anything. The main
difference from NeXT to Mac is that Mac OS X allows programs,
documents and folders in the Dock instead of simply programs.
Yes, it was a catch up... where it came from isn't the issue. Other
OS's had it's usefullness by then and Mac OS was lacking and wanting
without some functionality of that nature.
One primary function of Taskbars/Docks is as a a "head's up display" or
"dashboard. Another primary function is to minimize the number of mouse
clicks needed to access subcomponents.
Unfortunately, the Dock... as pretty as it is ... was only a half
measure because while it exists now it only performs part of the "heads
up" display and only diminishes the number of clicks in certain
situations while not really helping much in others.
Analogous to leaving the gas gauge off the dashboard ... putting it in
the glovebox ... so that you have to do something ... lean over and open
the glove box... in order to know how much gas you have.
OS X dock is not as much help as it easily could be and as a Linux or
Window taskbars are today. The Dock is a half measure of what taskbars
were always intended to be in terms of function.
An exaggerated metaphor: Like building a tall building and leaving out
the elevator. Yes the building still works ... but whoa... the stairs
sure add to the time it takes to get to your office...
The operating systems are different. Get used to it.
No... I am never going to get used to a tool that greatly slows down my
ability to do my work
Kind of like sticking with "a beautiful, intelligent but unhealthily
neurotic woman. If one feature is a non-starter, the other two don't
really matter to you do they?
Vive la différence! Learn the idiosyncracies of multiple systems,
appreciate and use them. Mac users have done it for years. So have a
lot of Windows users. Your turn. Switch from program to program -
Command + Tab [borrowed from Windows!]. Switch from window to window
in a program - Command + tilde ~ [or accent grave `]. Easy.
Yes ... people are VERY different too but for the most part we all have
two legs, two ears, one mouth etc.... and that's a good thing!
Commonality of parts and function is a good and very desired feature of
both organisms and mechanisms. And at the end of the day ... form
always follows function. It may take a while but the universe is
always in the end economical. It just may not look that way depending
on where you are standing at any given moment ...
Maybe you could use David Pogue's Missing Manuals.
Got them ... but the title of that series exactly makes my point. Mac's
manuals are missing ... and they need them (In so many ways they
actually don't need manuals but in midst of all the terrific design
there are elements that haven't been worked out well ... unsuccessful
elements of OS X design. The Missing Manuals is a passing reference to
the fact that people assume macs are just "start 'em up and use 'em
intuitive" but actually they don't quite accomplish that in all ways ...
and someone outside of Apple does the arguably best job of realizing
that fact and documenting the issues.
As I am trying to do now. But seem to be ruffling feathers in doing so..
(I'll never personally understand why techies can be so emotional about
machines and software bits...
you'd think I was criticizing someone's mother ...)
Mac's OS from the outgo was always about being able to operate a
computer intuitively without extended computer training. And in the
beginning compared to the competition they certainly were good at that.
And they remain so in many ways now. (Innately more secure, innately
easier to set up, innately better constructed etc.) All things that DO
save time in the long run.
But I'm trying to get a lot of work done every day that I am paid to
do (... although obviously not today! :) ) and the computing process
is time eater. I HATE MS and everything they stand for but with my
frequently heavily mult-tasked and varied work load, sadly Windows let's
me accomplish more work tasks faster and as a techie I can pretty
efficiently deal with Windows innefficiencies of setup, security etc..
I'd love to switch but just can't sacrifice Window's / Linux simplicity
of function in running a gadzillion windows / projects at once...
Yet! ....
:)
db
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
