News group still active
Todd
notebooks out, and no chatter.
Can all be right in the Mac World?
Todd
Bob Nielsen
Most newsgroups tend to attract people trying to solve problems.
Apple--it just works.
Wolf Kirchmeir
True, most of the time. But the occasional Apple Newbie is surprised to
find that Apple can't do everything they want it to do, or that its, um,
er, ah, "quirks" are annoying. Then he's further surprised that Apple
doesn't get it - there are different, and sometime even better, ways to
do some things.
Just like Microsoft, in fact.
Heh heh. :-)
So, just like on my Windows machine, I use 3rd party software more often
than that bundled with or made by the OS maker.
--
Wolf Kirchmeir
MacGeek
Wolf Kirchmeir <wol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
anywhere near the Vancouver store?
The One to One program is perfect for newbies to learn the quirks
Wolf Kirchmeir
I'm in mid-Northern Ontario, closest Mac dealer is in the Soo. I've
learned a lot about Macs just by fooling around.
Actually, the only quirk I detest is having an application's menu bar
attached to the desktop instead of its application window. A nice
example of "we've always done it that way." There was some sense to
doing it thus when machines had small amounts of RAM (reuse of the same
chunk of video RAM saved memory space), but it's not necessary anymore.
Now that the single-button mouse is no longer required, the other quirks
aren't a problem. FWIW, my experience with Apples goes back to the IIe,
at which time I also messed around with many of the other machines and
OSs available at that time. I switched to PCs partly because of
compatibility with work-related computers, but mostly because of the
cost: PCs were (and still are) better value for the dollar than the Mac
for the _average_ user. OTOH, for certain creative uses, nothing beats
the Mac -- not because it's a better machine or OS, but because of the
software.
HTH
--
Wolf Kirchmeir
Wim Lewis
Wolf Kirchmeir <wol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Actually, the only quirk I detest is having an application's menu bar
>attached to the desktop instead of its application window. A nice
>example of "we've always done it that way." There was some sense to
>doing it thus when machines had small amounts of RAM (reuse of the same
>chunk of video RAM saved memory space), but it's not necessary anymore.
True. I used to feel the same way, but I've become fonder of the Mac
menu bar over time (I came from an X11 background). It's not that I like
having it attached to the top of the screen, although the Fitt's law
argument[1] is a good one. Instead, it's that application focus (like
all UI focus) is a modal thing, and a given menu bar only applies when
its application is active --- showing the menubars for all the non-
focus application windows is just visual clutter.
Some applications have little floating tool palettes or inspectors that
attach themselves to whatever element of the document you're editing
at the time (eg editing text in an illustration app) which I like in
theory but dislike in practice.
[1] http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000642.html
--
Wim Lewis <wi...@hhhh.org>, Seattle, WA, USA. PGP keyID 27F772C1
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history." -Hegel
Wolf Kirchmeir
> In article <48fb3188$0$30499$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> Wolf Kirchmeir <wol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Actually, the only quirk I detest is having an application's menu bar
>> attached to the desktop instead of its application window. A nice
>> example of "we've always done it that way." There was some sense to
>> doing it thus when machines had small amounts of RAM (reuse of the same
>> chunk of video RAM saved memory space), but it's not necessary anymore.
>
> True. I used to feel the same way, but I've become fonder of the Mac
> menu bar over time (I came from an X11 background). It's not that I like
> having it attached to the top of the screen, although the Fitt's law
> argument[1] is a good one. Instead, it's that application focus (like
> all UI focus) is a modal thing, and a given menu bar only applies when
> its application is active --- showing the menubars for all the non-
> focus application windows is just visual clutter.
Interesting POV. I don't find it cluttering at all, since in Windows the
non-focused window greys out, and the focused window comes to to the
front. I guess it's a matter of what you've learned to ignore. ;-)
I often mouse directly to the unfocused app's toolbar, which both
focuses that app, and opens the menu I want. If you have to mouse off
that window to the top of the screen -- well, I think Fitts' law shows
that it takes longer to do that. Besides, most people put the dock at
the bottom, so opening a minimised app requires mousing from the bottom
to the top of the screen....
Modern monitors are big enough (mine is 21", set to 1680x1050) that one
can have two or more windows opened to a suitable size without serious
overlap.
I don't have much experience with Linux, but FWIW I did notice that
SUSe's Gnome desktop has menubars attached to the app windows.
> Some applications have little floating tool palettes or inspectors that
> attach themselves to whatever element of the document you're editing
> at the time (eg editing text in an illustration app) which I like in
> theory but dislike in practice.
Agreed. I tested a model RR layout drawing app on the Mac yesterday that
defaulted to _five_ of these palettes open on startup. Bah! I prefer
context sensitive menus, activated by clicking on the object in question.
> [1] http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000642.html
Good read!
In the end, it comes down to habits. It's irritating and inefficient
having to modify a habitual gesture when moving from one OS to another.
It's good IMO that there is a slow but steady convergence on a common
standard.
Cheers,
--
Wolf Kirchmeir