Spork Boards

That's right, Mr. Meader- don't look here for thoze rum0rz...

Simon's Avatar Picture Simon – December 20, 2007 04:49AM Reply Quote
Yet Another Transplant Thread (credit to Brian Miller for the original) (and Robert Taylor for the 2nd edition)

So, when do you expect to see the next 21-slot G5 subnotebook with built-in antigravity? Or do you have other things to complain about regarding the Mac rum0rz press?

Cloudscout – March 29, 2009 03:00PM Reply Quote
Det finnes ikke dårlig vær, bare dårlige klær!
#1 isn't such a big deal to me.
#2 is something that really pisses me off. I hate the fact that a dialog box can come up with two options, "Cancel" and "OK". The OK button is blue and the Cancel button is grey so one would think that OK is the default option if you hit the Enter key, right? Well, maybe... except the Cancel button has a blue ring around it. Conflicting visual cues. Inexcusable.
#3 is almost as irritating for me.

I want the gumdrops and the toothpaste to go away. If I only get one of the two, at least it'll be a start.

Jeff Cooper – March 31, 2009 11:04AM Reply Quote
I kind of understand what they were trying for with 3; it just isn't implemented well. When I'm working on a Word document, for example, and I switch between screens and resolutions (which I do fairly frequently), I don't really want the green gumdrop to expand the document to the full screen (height and width). Getting to full height and standard page width is a lot more useful, and that's more or less what the green gumdrop does in Word. In lots of other programs, though, the gumdrop's behavior does seem downright bizarre and unpredictable. No doubt this could be improved; I just don't want the same full-screen behavior in all programs.

ARL (Moderator) – April 03, 2009 12:27AM Reply Quote
How about a finder preference for what the green orb does? (Fill screen, fill height, or fill width)

How about app specific settings for the same?

And how about an orb or square finder preference too?

ddt – April 03, 2009 01:29AM Reply Quote
perhaps this is telling in more ways than one, but i'd had no idea what the green orb did. in fact, in some apps it doesn't do anything, i just found out.


Roger – April 03, 2009 10:51AM Reply Quote
I don't even comprehend this discussion. Has everyone forgotten what the "zoom" button used to do when it worked right (in Mac OS Classic)? Or is the problem that the implementation is so confused and confusing in OS X -- where it's always been some awkward and unpredictable hybrid of "zoom" and Windows-like "maximize" depending on how the individual app implemented it? I honestly can't imagine any situation where Windows-style "fill screen" rather than Classic-style "show as close to all your contents as possible" was the desired behavior. This was the wrong design decision in Windows 1.0, and it's still wrong now -- if you actually use windows to manipulate and display content, you want them to frame the content but still be able to move/see around them, you do not want them taking up the whole screen and behaving like modes. This has been on Ars Technica's FTFF bug lists since OS X was in Developer Preview.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2009 10:52AM by Roger.

johnny k – April 03, 2009 11:01AM Reply Quote
It's just supposed to map to the old maximize widget, no?

John Willoughby – April 03, 2009 11:23AM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
AND the minimize widget. Because a green orb that shows a plus on mouse-over is the international symbol for both of the two diametrically opposed actions.

Roger – April 03, 2009 11:51AM Reply Quote
no no no this is exactly the problem. The Zoom function is neither Windows' Maximize (= enter full-screen mode), nor Windows' nor Classic Mac OS' Minimize (whatever the specific way this works, Taskbar/Dock shrinking or Windowshade). The yellow (-) still does Minimize. The green (+) looks like it's opposed to that, which was a dumb design choice, and looks like it means "make bigger," which was another dumb design choice, and has generally been a kind of russian-roulette developer's choice between something like Windows' Maximize (useless) and some personal and half-assed implementation of Zoom. It should've been Zoom all along, and it still should be now. I can't believe we're still having to defend things that the first Mac ever made did right (edit: okay, this function was actually introduced in System 3) against becoming the wrong way Windows does the same function.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2009 11:55AM by Roger.

Cloudscout – April 03, 2009 01:02PM Reply Quote
Det finnes ikke dårlig vær, bare dårlige klær!
Here are the scenarios in which I want it to behave the way the Windows Maximize button behaves:

1) Web Browsing - I want the ability to make the browser window fill as much screen real-estate as I have available. I don't want to scroll if I don't have to.
2) Coding - I want to see as much code as possible on the screen at any given moment.
3) Terminal - There are times when I'm working on something in Terminal (usually editing text files) where I would like to have as many rows/columns showing as my display resolution can support.
4) Email - I don't like "opening" email messages. I almost always view messages in the "Preview Pane". I would like to have my mail program fill the screen so I can keep my message list and the preview pane a useful size.

Outside of that, I don't care so much... but in those four cases, that green gumdrop is really irritating to me.

Roger – April 03, 2009 01:16PM Reply Quote
Used to be, from System 7 on, that you could option-click the zoom button to get it to maximize the window. I see no problem with making the function available somehow, but it shouldn't ever be the default behavior.

John Willoughby – April 03, 2009 01:19PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
I'll learn to live with whatever it does, but I want it standard across all apps and the OS.

johnny k – April 03, 2009 01:22PM Reply Quote
Yeah, I used the wrong word, but I meant the old Mac zoom.
In any case, I realize that I hardly use the button. Pretty much just for iTunes. Maybe because it's unpredictable, I manually resize a window.

stan adams – April 03, 2009 01:33PM Reply Quote
johnny k
Yeah, I used the wrong word, but I meant the old Mac zoom.
In any case, I realize that I hardly use the button. Pretty much just for iTunes. Maybe because it's unpredictable, I manually resize a window.

That makes a whole lot of sense to me too, and generally is the way I use it. I do think that Apple is smart enough to know that as well -- part of me wants to believe that they really do have some 'advanced user interaction' research type people still around and contributing. That would definitely explain how the "grab and stretch" aspects of iPhone/iTouch UI was arrived at. That does sort of point to an almost "mouse gestures' type way to standardize the behavior of resizing windows -- and I mean in a "logical way to makes work" sort of way, not the cryptic sorts mouse gestures.

The default positioning for the "window control objects" should NOT be just the title bar.

The WHOLE border is what matters, especially in a multi-screen world.

The re-size controls pretty much work well, though occasionally the diagonal does get confused with ONLY height or width.

Title bar control are increasingly dumb to even have. Does anyone really want to the "window shade" behavior?

John Willoughby – April 06, 2009 02:13PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
The Street is really starting to get behind an Apple tablet/netbook/sub-notebook/PDA/iPhone Max in the second half of the year.

We believe Apple needs to address the netbook market in its own differentiated way. As a result, Apple may introduce a
tablet-like computer/iPod optimized for media, gaming and other key features (possibly iChat). Media reports such as “Apple Plans To Launch Netbook With Touch Screen” (Dow Jones, 3/9/09) back our longstanding views that Apple may launch its answer to the netbook shortly. Media reports discuss a touchscreen size of 9.7-10 inches, which is in line with our longstanding views that the company is working on new form factors to bridge the gap between its iPod touch ($399) and low-end MacBook ($999). We believe that video chat and gaming could be interesting applications for any new device. As a result, we expect any Apple “netbook” to be very different (and “cooler”) than a typical Windows based device with a keyboard.

El Jeffe – April 06, 2009 04:05PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
New Dell Mini 10s coming too, per rumors sites. Same ease of install as Mini 9s

John Willoughby – April 06, 2009 04:09PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
Will they have hard disks? I have to have a hard disk. I can't afford SSD storage to meet my netbook needs.

El Jeffe – April 06, 2009 04:11PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
If they are like the current ones, it's YOUR CHOICE. SSD or HD.

tliet – April 06, 2009 04:49PM Reply Quote
I absolutely love the mini 9, Windows 7 flies on it. Boots up from power off to desktop in less than 30 seconds, thanks to the SSD. But indeed, a 64 Gbytes RunCore drive does around 300 dollars, so that's more than I paid for the whole computer, so that one is out of the question for a while.

ddt – April 06, 2009 04:51PM Reply Quote
yeah, but if apple doesn't "deliver" on the "expected" netbook -- which apple has never even hinted at (so such expectations are entirely the concoctions of these analysts and poop sites such as cnet) -- watch the stock take a big hit.


John Willoughby – April 06, 2009 05:58PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
I didn't think the mini 9 supported HD's.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login