- one menu bar for active applications: if you have many windows/applications open side-by-side you can't access (or even see) their menus until you switch to them. It's bad on a MacBook, I can't image the pain it is on a 27" or 30". If you're using Adium on a 30" monitor and you have it in the lower right-hand corner, the app's menu is 2 freaking feet away from the app!

-cmd+tab switches apps, not windows. you have to either use expose (slow) or cmd+tab, cmd+~. Minimized windows also don't cycle, so you can alt-tab to an app and still not get any windows, just the menu bar. Getting to a particular window shouldn't be so damned hard.

The windows/linux way - where each window is independent, equal and self-contained is much better IMO.

I switched to a Mac about four years ago, and I can't stand task switching in Windows/GNOME/KDE.

- Menu location: Having the menu at the top of the screen actually makes it easier/quicker to click (see Fitts' Law).

- Context switching: Context switching on OS X has more granularity. The up-sides of this are similar to the up-sides of tabbed browsing. Think about it for a moment. What's so great about tabbed-browsing? You can group windows and switch between tabs with ctrl-tab. On OS X, you have even more granularity:

App switching: cmd+tab

Window switching: cmd+~

Tab switching: app-context dependent cmd+<shift/opt>+arrow or ctrl+tab

My biggest complaint is that there is no consistency to the tab switching shortcut.

When trying to find a window in an environment where there are lots of windows, Expose is one of the rare times I find the mouse faster than the keyboard. I have key bindings for app and system-wide Expose, so depending upon my needs, I'll switch to the app containing the document and app-Expose, or I'll just use system-wide Expose.

It's more complicated, but when I use my computer, I feel like I'm playing an instrument. My muscles know where to go for any given task, and I can move around very quickly.

Much better, IMO.

While I see that this is true for smaller monitors, it becomes less true with today's large monitors. When I have a small window on the lower-right part of my large monitor, it becomes a hassle to move the mouse all the way over to the top-left of the screen, select my menu item, and then move it all the way back to the lower-right of the screen to continue working on what I was working on.

I work on a 24" display running at 1920 x 1200, so I've definitely experienced that long run to the menu bar. This is compounded by the fact that "Maximum" mouse speed on a Mac is a snail's pace compared to what I used to use on a PC. I grabbed a little utility called MagicPrefs to fix that issue:

http://magicprefs.com/

Outside of that, I've always been a keyboard junkie. There isn't much you can't do from the keyboard in OS X, and if you discover something you can't OS X has really robust Keyboard Shortcut customization. You can literally create or re-map any shortcut in any application from System Preferences > Keyboard > Keyboard Shortcuts.

Lifehacker article on that subject: http://bit.ly/11Z2c6

If I use a menu item more than once or twice a day, I memorize or create a shortcut for it.

I used to keep my Taskbar at the top of the screen in Win XP and Vista. Now, with the ubiquitous widescreen monitors, I keep it on the left-hand side, and wouldn't go back.

Honestly, I find menu bars that don't respond to Fitt's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts_Law) to be almost unusable. Two feet away isn't so much when you can blindly shove towards the top of the screen and have your mouse hit the menu.

(edit: fixed URL)

I wasn't an expose fan until I started to use a magic trackpad. It is a way of understanding what is happening on the computer that fits very well with a gesture interface.

This seems like a silly gripe. The cmd+delete sequence is operable with a single hand. In Windows, the operation requires either the use of the keyboard, then the mouse, or two keyboard operations:

delete, click yes

or

delete, enter

Both serve the purpose of preventing you from accidentally deleting the file. In OS X, this is accomplished by requiring a key combination, rather than a single key.

Based on the authors perspective, anything that is different is "annoying".

Agreed. It would be silly if Mac OS X allows you to configure it to behave like Windows.

I think cmd+delete is a better design than just delete key to delete. It makes you more aware of your delete action.

Good point

Based on the authors perspective, anything that is different is "annoying"

Strawman. There are lots of things that are different about a Mac that I either like or feel neutral about. I just listed the ones that annoy many PC users who make the switch. Things like having a window on the right side of the screen that I want to widen, and being required to move it to the left and then resize it, instead of just resizing it by dragging the left edge of the window is not just different, it's a pain in the ass.

The way Finder is designed, you often can't simply drag some files from one location to another (e.g. moving to the subdirectory of another directory). You need two Finder windows open in order to accomplish this, whereas Windows Explorer, whose left pane has the directory structure and right pane has the contents of the currently selected directory, lets you do this effortlessly using only one window.

--but I think that it is possible to do this on a Mac by opening Finder, clicking to the file you want to move, and then making sure that the third of the four display modes available (it looks like three vertical bars) is chosen. (These icons are right of the forward/backward buttons on the left of a Finder window.) This changes the display to a directory mode and allows you to drag and drop files from any subfolder to any other. Hovering over a folder's name while dragging a file will open that folder in the rightmost column and allow you to move the file to any subfolder.

There are some things that are just different. The folder tree in an exploring window is a semi-separate display from the objects within the current directory. There isn't a direct Mac OS X equivalent, but the same use is supported with one window using "spring-loaded folders." Dragging a file over the icons in the left-hand toolbar temporarily opens them and you can open any sub-directory by hovering similarly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finder_(software)

The action of springing through a file structure while holding onto a bunch of stuff is really great.

In Windows, you can just press the alt key -- either one, and you don't even need to release it -- and then each menu/item is (usually) a single keystroke. For instance, alt-e-a-s is firmly in my muscle memory... a quick four-key sequence on the right hand to activate Photoshop's Edit | Transform | Scale menu item. There's probably about a dozen menu items in Photoshop that I access regularly this way.

These keystroke combos are sometimes even easier than the menu item's hot keys; for example, I find alt-f-x (File | Exit) a less-contorting sequence to hit with one hand than alt-F4, the standard application-closing shortcut.

On the Mac laptop, by default you need to hit Ctrl-Fn-F2 to access the menus by keyboard -- an awkward three-key combination that takes two hands, and moves at least one hand off the home row. And from there the navigation is lexographic, which means multiple keystrokes per navigation step.

Does anyone know if there is a better way to navigate via keyboard that I'm missing?

THERE IS NO CUT!!!

If you want to move a file to somewhere else, you have to either copy&paste, or use mouse to drag (which sometimes is really difficult if the two locations are not reachable in one window/screen).

1. Spring-loaded folders. Drag the item to the left-hand pane (e.g., Places > Home) and hover over your home folder. After a moment, the folder will pop open. Continue this until you find where you want the file to go.

2. Use Path Finder (http://www.cocoatech.com/) and drag the item to the Drop Stack. Navigate where you want the file to go, and then drag the item from the Drop Stack.

Here's some awesome things that make up for the switch:

* If you have a File dialog open (file upload to a website, open file in any application, etc.) you can drag a file icon into it. The dialog will switch to the folder that file lives in, and highlight it.

* The little File icon at the top of file windows (say, TextEdit)? Those are so-called "proxy" file icons. Take that icon and drag it to an email to attach it, to the desktop to copy/move it, etc. Or drag it into a File dialog as described above!

* Command+Space opens Spotlight. Launch programs, search for documents, or do simple calculations. (quick, what's 2567/180 ?)

* Easily rebind your Caps Lock key to something useful from the Keyboard System Preferences pane. Lots of old UNIX geeks like to make it Control. It makes the Control+A/E exceedingly easy.

* Growl. It's not a Mac OS X builtin, but it's a must-install. I describe it to PC users this way: "Those little popups that Outlook does when you get new mail? Growl is a system-wide service that gives those to any application that wants them.

Those are the easy ones I can think of off the top of my head. After the initial transition period was over, I found I couldn't go back to using Windows.

I wish Apple would just buy Growl or something and just build it in, the lack of a notification system in a modern OS was bizarre to me when I first realized it was missing. It's something that's missing in both OSX and iOS.

* enter to rename files, best keyboard shortcut ever. someone please enlighten me on an easy way to rename in windows.

* closing last window doesn't quit application. the decluttering effect of this is amazing.

* if i press a modifier key and delete, i'm pretty positive that i want to delete something, no need to confirm. that's what the trash can is for. add shift and i empty the trash.

* windows NEEDs maximize designed the way it is because all those fancy borders and menus are so full of CLUTTER. macs are more true to the "windows" philosophy, windows should be called "screens" from how i've seen people abuse maximize.

* as a follow up, people maximize on windows in order for the menus to comply with Fitt's Law. as noted, not necessary on mac.

I do agree with finder being finicky though, but again, macs work well with multiple windows.

enter to rename files

I hate this. When i press enter on a folder in Finder, 99% of the time I want to open that folder not rename it. F2 does the trick in windows.

closing the last window doesn't quit

Also another weird one for me. Why would I want to close all windows and leave the program running? Doesn't it just hog memory/cycles while it's in this mode?

confirm delete

I'd rather it confirm than not but, then again, I'm constantly fatfingering keyboard shortcuts.

window management in the mac

I still can't get used to the fact that program windows don't fully maximize without a manual resize. I want my window to go full screen automagically, not only after I take a minute to resize the window to the perfect dimensions. Maybe my mouse skillz aren't l33t but I also hate the small minimize/maximize/close buttons.

If enter-to-rename is so great why does Apple violate it in iTunes?

In iTunes, when a song is selected and you press Enter, it doesn't ask you to rename it, but "opens" it, i.e. starts playing it.

F2

F2. It's the universal rename key in almost every renamable control in the OS. You can also do two slow clicks. But the timing is fidgety. You can also right click and rename in most context windows in most pieces of software that have a renamable control.

* closing last window doesn't quit application. the decluttering effect of this is amazing. *

How precisely is leaving stuff around you aren't going to use decluttering?

* windows NEEDs maximize designed the way it is because all those fancy borders and menus are so full of CLUTTER. macs are more true to the "windows" philosophy, windows should be called "screens" from how i've seen people abuse maximize. *

Ugh, the visual cacophony going on the background behind my applications in OSX are so f-ing distracting, I spend most of my time on a Mac moving the damn windows around and individually minimizing them so I don't have to look at them all the time. I really really really don't need to see the last 4 photos I opened up in Photoshop, a terminal window and browser and whatever other random stuff I happened to have opened over the last 6 hours sitting around in my visual field in the background while I do something else. Really, I don't. There are times when having more than one thing on the screen in different applications is useful. But 90% of the time it's a visual distraction that breaks focus.

I always find this counter argument amazing coming from a community that made worshiping full screen minimalist text editors an art form. http://www.hogbaysoftware.com/products/writeroom

Doesn't anybody in OSX user-land want to read a document or write music in full screen so they can focus on it? Or is that only for writing (it's clearly not for any other kind of production work)?

Gah!

* as a follow up, people maximize on windows in order for the menus to comply with Fitt's Law. as noted, not necessary on mac. *

No they don't. They maximize the windows so they can focus on the thing their actually working on instead of the visual field garbage cluttering up their peripheral vision.

Side rant: I wish beyond all that's holy that OSX users would stop excusing the obviously bad OSX menu bar design by bringing up Fitt's law when that's pretty much the only place in the entire OS that concept is followed. Pick an application, ANY application, and they jam all kinds of controls all over the screen. Web browsers don't just line up links along the edges of the screen, they embed them all over the screen, Photoshop's toolkit isn't jammed against the side of the screen, it's a floating window, iPhoto doesn't just give you a linear list of photos along the bottom of the screen, iTunes playback controls aren't lined up directly along the bottom, Safari has almost no major control surfaces on the edges of the screen...etc. etc. etc.

If you rely on Fitt's law to save a novice mouse user from OSX's incredibly bad (and non-configurable) mouse acceleration curve, you'll be very sad. For all of the gods sakes (past and present), stop bringing up the example of the one singular interface component in the entire OS that happens to adhere to Fitt's law if nothing else in the operating system follows it. (btw, all those windows floating around that you can't maximize in OSX? yeah. those don't follow Fitt's law of an infinite mouse target either by definition)

Gah!

Command-option-H. You'll like it.

I like the deemphasis on full-screen windows in Mac OS; one of the biggest losses in OSX UIs of the last decade is that they've moved from the exceedingly customizable palette-style UI (see ircle, for example—an IRC client with the entry box in a different window from the chat log!) to the iTunes-inspired, all-features-in-one-window style.

The ability to use the windowing system to split your focus between different documents and apps for the same task (instead of maximizing every damn thing, like most Windows users I know) was powerful; the current approach reeks of MDI. (As does Adobe CS5—git yer damn tabs outta my Photoshop, Adobe.)

PS - Personally, I can't stand the mouse acceleration curves on Windows. "In matters of taste, there can be no dispute."

CS5 - Tabs can be a powerful thing when done right, CS5 does not do them right. I strongly dislike Photoshop's tab implementation. Though I'd never in a million years hold up Photoshop (with its aging wretched evolutionary interface cruft) as an example for people to follow in UI design.

Maximize - I've known many people who use the exact phrase "maximize every damn thing" when referring to people's desire to maximize windows to focus on one thing at a time. I've actually sat down with them to discuss their UI behavior and observe how they use their smaller non-maximized windows. What I discovered was fascinating. Instead of focusing on one particular thing at a time, and moving their mouse around inside screen sized real-estate, with nothing else cluttering up their visual field, they focused on one particular thing at a time except they had a much smaller area to work in, things became cluttered and they often got distracted or confused by non-relevant stuff in the background. They spent inordinate amount of time moving windows around to get them positioned well to not be distracting or so they could see them all well (as if the other document they were writing was going to suddenly change state without their notice and they wanted to see that happen - yes this was how it was described exactly to me), and fiddling with toolbars so they were "just so". If I didn't know better, I'd classify most of the behaviors as OCD type worry twitches. The real problem is that if you want to maximize and focus on a Mac, you simply can't. Whereas on Windows or many Linuxes, I can choose either method of operation -- like if I writing some code and have a separate app up logging network activity or something, I can do that. But if I'm having a particularly bad time killing a bug, I simply can't maximize and get everything else out of the way.

There is a built in efficiency in killing off tasks serially that you sometimes can't get when operating in parallel.

Thanks for the command-option-h tip.

However, I still think the multiple-window model is powerful when single-tasking with multiple tools. In XCode, for example, I always run in the "Condensed" layout; the file list is in one window, the editor is another, as are docs, the console, the debugging HUD, etc. It lets me put things where I want them to be: console and debugger on the second monitor, documentation side-by-side with the editor, etc. And I can scootch them around to make room to see a terminal window, or IRC in a dev chat, or whatever.

It means I do spend a little more time on the resize handle than I would hitting a mythical Mac "maximize" button, but trying to use single-window IDEs feels like walking in mud in comparison. (I'm looking at you, XCode 4.)

I tend to use Spaces to focus on tasks. One neat trick: you can manage windows from the Spaces zoomed-out view. Drag your IDE or text editor to another space, or shift-drag to grab all an app's windows at once. You can even engage Expose in Spaces and drag windows from that view. I never find myself wanting a window filling the screen, especially with modern resolutions.

Point taken on ircle. I'm just nostalgic.

Oh most definitely. Having multiple tools available all at once (particularly monitoring tools) is really powerful and can shorten up certain work cycles immensely.

One area where I can definitely see the maximize window concept of Windows falling down is the huge screen real estate available on some monitors. I don't have a problem with it on a 22" monitor, but say...a 32" that may end up just being too big. I can't keep the entire screen in my visual field anyway.

Ircle: I know, old software, even with warts, can sometimes still feel best. Like an old pair of shoes.

enter to rename is just a lot faster for me than f2, bigger clearer button makes it much faster. from a usability standpoint, i'd rather rename easily than open easily.

when opening - you usually have the file(s) you want highlighted, and you KNOW you want to open it, so you can divert your attention to "okay, now i want to open this, press cmd+down"

for me, when I'm renaming, it's usually an annoyance I run into in the middle of doing something, I want to get it over with and move on, at which point hitting enter quickly without having to hunt for F2 (or even worse, right clicking and finding a menu option) is much faster. It also makes serial renaming of multiple files easier and much more keyboard friendly.

also maybe it's because I've gotten used to the cmd+up and cmd+dn to go up and down directories (and also open files). in the end, we're all arguing a matter of preference.

on closing windows:

it's equivalent to minimizing for windows. I want my mail app and calendar apps to be running and able to give notifications, but the window itself doesn't need to be rendered. Also, stuff like my browser that i open and close constantly doesn't need to be reloaded from the HD every time I open it, I don't want to see photoshop and office splash screens and wait the extra seconds to load an app every time i open a file simply because i closed the last window last time.

I also liberally use spaces to deal with the "background clutter" issue. When i need to move to a new task, i go to a new clean space and work there.

I agree that f2, as an interface key, is less convenient that enter. However, there's a principle that more common interface operations should have shorter paths to activation and less common ones can become more and more inconvenient by being buried in menus or hidden behind some non-discoverable 3 or 4 key combination. The key side benefit is discover-ability. Renaming is just simply not as common an operation as opening/running. Unless you spend your days renaming lots of things and only open on occasion I guess.

But this principle, shorter path to common operations, is violated all over the place in OSX keyboard land, but rigidly followed in OSX mouse land and iOS touch land. Whereas the inverse is probably true for Windows.

also maybe it's because I've gotten used to the cmd+up and cmd+dn to go up and down directories (and also open files). in the end, we're all arguing a matter of preference.

I agree in many cases. cmd+up/dn is just as good as the windows equivalent. Being different isn't being worse, being worse is being worse.

it's equivalent to minimizing for windows. I want my mail app and calendar apps to be running and able to give notifications, but the window itself doesn't need to be rendered. Also, stuff like my browser that i open and close constantly doesn't need to be reloaded from the HD every time I open it, I don't want to see photoshop and office splash screens and wait the extra seconds to load an app every time i open a file simply because i closed the last window last time.

There are three things you should be aware of. In windows land, you can have background services running that handle notifications. You don't need the app open if they've designed it that way. Often they'll even stick a little icon in the taskbar you can click to open the app. Second, often pieces of windows software will stay resident in some part so that opening them a second time is much faster than the first time. Firefox for example takes a good 20 seconds to open on my system (what with all the extensions and junk I have in it). But only 2 or 3 seconds after that. Chrome opens so fast the first time I may as well have it minimized. Office apps in particular do a good job of this. Third, because of the MDI style in Windows, closing a document in an MDI style program is clearly not the same as closing the application. Many applications will stay up after closing the last document, like Photoshop, but it's clear that it's open and not just indicated by a generic toolbar at the top of the screen that could pretty much be from any old open app -- which is a consistent problem in OSX, "I've closed all my documents, now is the software closed or not, dunno, there's a toolbar that looks like every other tool bar for every other app, perhaps it is closed and I've just switched to another application, nope! It's still open". Not saying this is better, it just falls into the "different" category. Once you get used to it you go to close the app by command-Qing everything. But it's hugely annoying going from Windows->OSX and never ever ends up "feeling" right.

just a final note on the last part. I am aware that windows caches your recently run programs to some degree, but it's still not quite the same sense of control of knowing your app is running. (also, have you tried starting a MS office app on the mac? yikes)

and windows 7 has definitely fixed a lot of the clutter that really annoyed me with the taskbar and makes it a lot less annoying to minimize a whole bunch of windows. and the whole "minimize to tray" was just a way to get around the taskbar clutter, but then you start getting system tray clutter... and that's another story.

the list of running apps on OSX is fairly easy to tell for me from the "dots" under the dock badges. also, my fav trick for quitting apps is holding cmd, tabbing to the app you want, then pressing q to quit.

anyway, it's mostly a matter of preference. it all felt foreign to me when i first made the switch too, but after getting used to it, i'll take OSX's quirks over windows any day

> and windows 7 has definitely fixed a lot of the clutter that really annoyed me with the taskbar and makes it a lot less annoying to minimize a whole bunch of windows.

I agree, it really is a completely different way of operating. I used to spend a lot of time trying to get the old taskbar out of the way, with Win 7, it feels really nice, operates even better, and in many ways makes a lot of sense.

> and the whole "minimize to tray" was just a way to get around the taskbar clutter

Truer words were never spoken. The process tray is really quite abused. Do I really need 37 icons in there. At least with 7 you can configure the behavior a bit.

I do like how OSX's dock operates, and how it indicates running programs and the like. I think Windows 7 copied very liberally from this in terms of function, but it looks quite a bit different, with some updated ideas.

I still think Apple can optimize the dock and toolbar and notification area of OSX a bit more.

> my fav trick for quitting apps is holding cmd, tabbing to the app you want, then pressing q to quit.

Yeah, that's almost as nice as Chrome's tab closing operation.

In OSX land, there is a nice tendency to put a verb on the buttons like "Yes, Do XYZ" or "Not right now" or something descriptive and unambiguous and creates a nice cognitive binding between buttons and actions. It's a simple thing but is noticeable and I wish it would start to bleed over in Windowsland more.

The big one for me was no home/end keys (unless you buy the extended keyboard, and even then they don't work in some applications). I ended up remapping "right command" to home and "right option" to end.

So, I have CapsLock mapped to Command (so that CapsLock-C and CapsLock-V are copy and paste, for example, in Mac apps) and to make sure I'm happy in emacs, I have the following in my .emacs

  (setq mac-command-modifier 'control) 

(Relatedly: cmd+up/down; alt+left/right.)

Of course it also doesn't help that I'm running OS X in a VM and need to Windows-C/V to cut & paste!

As expected, holding shift at the same time allows you to select the text from the current cursor position to wherever you are jumping to.

One of things I love about Mac is the consistency of shortcut key. Command+w always close a window or a tab. Command+, always gets me to preferences. No command+control+D to get to dictionary for the highlighted word? No Google Chrome for me.

To get the symbol to appear you need to hit alt+3. I only found this after a quick journey to google.

The US-english one is shift-3:

http://images.apple.com/macbookpro/images/overview-gallery2-...

Extant examples of "OSX" (sometimes mixed with OS X)

  http://osx.hyperjeff.net/
  http://code.google.com/p/git-osx-installer/
  http://www.mono-project.com/Mono:OSX
  http://mplayerosx.sttz.ch/
  http://mac.rhino3d.com/
  http://web.mac.com/npirzkal/Scisoft/Scisoft.html
  http://tlt.its.psu.edu/suggestions/international/keyboards/mackey.html
  http://rubyosx.rubyforge.org/
  http://help.github.com/mac-git-installation/
  http://maketecheasier.com/turn-your-ubuntu-hardy-to-mac-osx-leopard/2008/07/23
  http://wiki.winehq.org/MacOSX
  http://gimp.lisanet.de/Website/Download.html

Hmm...I wonder if there's any examples like this from Apple?

  http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/imaging_3d/osximageresizer.html
  http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/blogs_forums/osxtutorials.html
  http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/email_chat/mdemailhostingosx.html
  http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/wifi-touchpad-for-windows/id291212802?mt=8

Please know what you are talking about before you bring proscriptive snark to HN in the future please.

OSX Image Resizer 0.9.2

About OSX Image Resizer Performs one simple task in a fast and easy to use way; resizing a large number of images quickly on your computer. The software allows you to resize a collection of images (from 10 to 10,000+) so that they are all resized to a specific width or height while maintaining their original aspect ratio. You can also resize your images so that they all fit within a specific sized box (useful for resizing images for eBay for instance).

OSX Image Resizer will open the following file formats; JPEG, GIF, PNG, TIFF, TGA. The current version saves files in the following formats; JPEG or PNG-24. Saving your files as JPEGs allows you to resize your photo collection for archiving or emailing to family. Saving your files as 24-Bit PNGs maintains full alpha channel support so that you can resize icon-sets or buttons for your website without losing transparent or semi-transparent backgrounds.

Flagged.

The link you cite is a piece of freeware written by John Wordsworth. It's written right there on the page. I asked, very clearly, whether you can produce an instance where Apple themselves have referred to their own operating system as OSX. You have not done produced a single such instance.

I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp, nor is it clear why you seem so upset about it.