I actually like APT on ubuntu (and probably Debian), but the disk-image-based install mechanism of MacOS is just WEIRD.
Windows has installers, which makes since for "installing", but I agree there is a lot of inconsistency in windows installers. And at least Mac is consistently weird.
Well, it used to be consistent, maybe back in the days of System 6. Nowadays some apps you install from the App Store, some you install by opening a disk image and dragging to Applications, some you install by running an installer, some you install via Homebrew...
I recently switched to a Macbook. Formerly used mostly linux, with an occasional boot into Windows for gaming now and then, so it's not like I'm comparing to some nirvana experience here (linux is laughably bad and unintuitive). I've used a macbook for work for over 6 years now, though.
The MacOS desktop is...a poor experience even compared with linux. And don't get me started on the Finder app. That has to be one of the most infuriatingly bad applications I've ever used. It's opinionated in mostly the wrong ways and is cumbersome to use to navigate around to actually find anything.
I'm forced to use Mac at work, and I find both Windows and Linux to be more powerful and less constrained as technical work environments.
Too much of MacOS is designed around hiding functionality and protecting non-technical users, but the way they do it is uneven and awkward. Building code requires you to accept license agreements in ten different inconsistent places, you have to hit hotkeys to delete things or mark them as executable. File paths are hidden unless you jump through hoops, Apple is always shoving Safari and iTunes down your throat, the context menu is littered with useless garbage like "Look up X", the desktop environment requires 3rd party plugins for power use, XCode is the single worst IDE I've ever had to use, ...
Finder is the worst file browser in the world. This is probably my top complaint and sums up why Apple is so frustrating. It's like Apple is trying to hide information from you and gives me the impression that they only care about the superficial appearance of their Finder app over its actual functionality. Explorer and Nautilus are miles better in every use case: finding files, listing files, managing files, navigating directory trees, mounting remove volumes, ... Finder makes all of these tasks incredibly tedious, hiding them as much as possible so the app looks minimal and uncluttered. It's horrible.
Apple even removed the escape key from their laptops at one point, which should go to show you that technical users are not their primary audience.
I'd recommend Mac for editing text documents, but not much else. Even file management feels second class to the point I'd want to work on video and 3d workflows in Windows instead. I'd never want to program on a Mac.
I actually gave up on having my windows maximized, or side by side, they are now just all overlapping, and its whatever. I try to keep a portion of every window visible on the screen so I can quickly click between them, it looks like a disorganized mess, but it is MY disorganized mess.
And even then it doesn't work very well. The problem is the app remains in control, unlike in say Xorg where the window manager has the final say. When I used a Mac I found many apps outright ignored the window manager.
It's absolutely awful. My 2500$ macbook's window processing is at least 10 times slower than my 250$ thinkpad with linux. It's insane that such simple things don't work on such an established and valuable brand.
If the app lauching the window is placed as an icon in the task bar, you can pop its window app with Windows + (number of icon, counting from the start menu button). It doesn't work for some misbehaving apps which I guess didn't bother to do proper windows integration (Spyder IDE is one such example), but overall works great.
You can change the window title in X, though chances are the window manager will just change it back next time it's refreshed.
xprop -f _NET_WM_NAME 8u -set _NET_WM_NAME "New Window Name"
I'm not sure why anyone would do this, and I'm also not sure what the GP comment means by "naming windows" anyway. KDE does allow assigning shortcuts to windows, but I've never used this either.
I think apple lost interest in the desktop years ago and are eternally surprised it's still lasting, run as an afterthough. Why is deleting a file from a usb stick to free up space so fiddly? No one has ever taken the time to really think through how things work.
M1 can be explained by consolidating iOS and macOS so that less effort is spent on the desktop. M1 machines are very close to iPhones when it comes to the boot process and security model, and iOS features are now infiltrating the desktop like widgets and even the ability to run iOS apps on desktop (used to be Marzipan/Catalyst but it still meant the apps had to be compiled for it, but now macOS on M1 is technically capable of running raw iOS apps directly).
M1 is about capturing growth in the laptop/desktop/workstation market, it isn't about cost savings a dying market. Consolidation isn't the right word. It's about taking their mobile "opinions" and saying if we bring these to the desktop we can grow the market. The ROI does not make sense otherwise. Might as well pay Intel and keep milking it then.
Then why do I have to keep unpinning iTunes? Why does it come back when I remove it?
Why does it only have colorful icons instead of icons+text? I use a bunch of IDEs that visually look the same, but their functionality is wildly different. This is a usability nightmare.
I bought a Mac in 2014 after a lifetime of using Windows. I never understood why people called it easier to use than Windows. Maybe this sentiment is a holdover from an earlier era when people would mindlessly run executables and zip files attached in emails and AIM messages.
From a UI perspective, it's 90% identical to windows. From a UX perspective though, something fundamental like Finder is still not up to the job IMO. Why is it that when I click Finder, nothing actually opens? I have to hit Option+N to actually display a Finder window.
Don't even get me started on the sort options. What kind of file manager applies a Sort view to every single directory, instead of the one you actually set the Sort view to?
> Why is it that when I click Finder, nothing actually opens?
I'm not sure what you're doing wrong here - when I click the Finder icon it shows me the top Finder window, or opens a new one if there is no window. Is this not what it does for you?
But this is the standard behavior for pretty much all apps on Mac OS, so if their complaint is specifically about Finder and not about the general behavior, that sounds like a bug to me.
If you use an external monitor, Big Sur has a tendency to hide windows off the edge of the screen when it wakes.
macOS will do its thing when you click the dock icon and bring the window to the front, but it can be hard to notice because only a sliver of the window will actually be visible.
That's only if the app is already open. If you Quit Finder when no windows are open, the first click opens no windows.
Arguably, it's intuitive:
* If you know what you are doing, you can go to the menu bar or click on the icon again.
* If you don't know know what you are doing, the obvious action is to blame yourself and click the icon again, which does open a window (to the Recents folder). So it's gaslighting a little, but it is intuitive.
> That's only if the app is already open. If you Quit Finder when no windows are open, the first click opens no windows.
I'm not sure what you're talking about - you cannot quit Finder and the app is always open. You can only force restart it but it is never in a quit state for you to do what you're say you're doing, and if you do force-start it it behaves as already described.
And that was definitely a bug at one point. Whenever I encountered it years ago, I was always bemused thinking about how a typical user would ever figure out how to open Finder and get to their files. No matter how many times you clicked the dock icon, the window would never appear. Of course, I know to use Cmd+N; and nowadays, a new Finder window opens as expected when clicked.
I started off as a Windows user, but in college I switched to I think OS X Tiger at the time. To me, it was a pretty impressive upgrade & I had a *nix terminal at my disposal. But imo macOS has been running on the same UX upgrade since it started calling itself OS X.
I think this sentiment largely comes from the era when Microsoft Windows XP was the dominant Windows flavor and also the ME/Vista debacles.
I switch at around the same time and I had the exact same experience. You can use your Mac pretty much the same way you did 15 years ago. Some of the newer stuff is a little annoying, there’s basically “to much” operating system and it sometimes get in the way.
The article isn’t wrong though, so things do seem a bit weird if you don’t know they work. MacOS is far from perfect, it is however much more consistent than Windows.
Also, by default Finder seems to hide directory structure from you. This seems to be Apple thinking it'll confuse people if they can see 'up' directories, but I think just as often it confuses people like me who are trying and failing to go up.
I use all three major desktop OSes regularly now, and overall Windows just feels like the most user-friendly and straightforward, though of course it too has issues (e.g. various settings/control panel options being randomly split between new style and old style systems).
Oh, and Linux seems to be by far the least stable. I have apps freezing the whole damn computer way more often there than the other two.
Are you looking for 'Go', and 'Enclosing Folder'? Or if you navigated to a folder from its parent, you can click the back button, just like a browser, which is probably what most users expect. It's like navigating links.
The inability to easily go to $HOME in Finder is of great annoyance to mevwhen combined with app signing. Hashicorp seems to run into this most often - download a new version of Terraform/Packer/whatever, install to ~/.terraform.d/plugins/darwin_amd64, and MacOS sternly tells me I can't run it, with zero instructions on how to proceed. Manually type the path in Finder/Go, Option+Open the binary, then you're good to go.
I understand the reasoning for protecting the end user, but like UAC in Windows, or Developer Mode options in Android, you should be able to disable these protections. If I want to run a binary, I want to run that binary.
You can actually just goto your home folder. Goto Finder>Preferences, then Sidebar, you'll find your home folder is stashed away in there but not checked. It'll just be your username.
You can also unhide hidden dot folders as well if you wish but by default those are hidden. I don't have the instructions for that right now but a google search can find it for you if you want it.
Yes, that's probably the first thing I do in Finder on a new macOS device. I struggle to understand the reasoning behind hiding it by default, since it only contains the standard folders like Documents, Downloads, Movies, etc.
I suppose it's an attempt to conceal/abstract away the underlying file system structure, which probably makes sense if those folders are already on the sidebar.
> The inability to easily go to $HOME in Finder is of great annoyance to me
You should be able to use cmd+shift+h to always jump to the home directory in finder. I remember having the same real annoyance until I discovered the hotkey.
It’s also on the menu bar under Go > Home.
(The menu bar is possibly my favourite thing about Macs. Especially that you can search it from the keyboard and it shows you where the command you want is with a nice little arrow. Even in Excel)
Are you saying that it's not intuitive for the end user to press Cmd-G, type ~, and then click OK to land in a "home" folder where the majority of the important configuration files are hidden by default?
The majority of configuration files should not be edited directly, but changed by changing settings in the app preferences. So that seems consistent with the philosophy on the Mac - don't work with files and the file system directly, but let the appropriate app take care of it as far as possible. Same with music and photos.
Photos existing in the giant photos thing is just a mess. I hate it. I have to export them to do anything. I am not sure they even back up correctly. And this is photos.
> Also, by default Finder seems to hide directory structure from you. This seems to be Apple thinking it'll confuse people if they can see 'up' directories, but I think just as often it confuses people like me who are trying and failing to go up.
Kind of ironic considering all the research Apple did that led to the spatial finder.
You have to customise MacOS to show full file paths and hidden files. Someone at Apple decided that users couldn't be trusted with that super-secret information, but anyone who reads HN is going to find that frustrating.
I go back to Windows occasionally and I still hate every single thing about it. The tiles, the file system, the telemetry, the intrusive updates that guarantee I'll have to wait for an undefined time before I can get some work done, the driver lottery (still...) And many more.
MacOS is more of a workable OS with some really stupid warts. They should have been fixed years ago, but they probably won't be, ever.
Finder is particularly bad, and has needed a complete overhaul for at least a decade.
But Apple's other apps are heading in an MS-ish direction - which is more controlling and constraining, and less intuitive and transparent. It really shouldn't be as hard as it is to export photos from Photos, and the screen grabber should just allow saving to any file location instead of getting in the way with some random-ish defaults, one of which can be customised, if only you remember you need to.
This all reeks of second-rate middle management - untalented PMs trying to justify their existence with poorly-designed updates while more serious issues go unaddressed.
Apple are a weird company. When they're in the zone they can hit it out of the park, like with the M1. But - ironically - desktop UI design is not the model it could be. If MacOS 11 ever happens (not holding my breath...) it would be just as likely to be a step backwards as forwards.
> the intrusive updates that guarantee I'll have to wait for an undefined time before I can get some work done
This is a common criticism but it's entirely false. Windows offers a lot more way to delay or refuse updates than macOS. When macOS wants to update, the best you can do is "Ask again tomorrow". And pray you see the popup before it reboots in 60 seconds.
Agreed on the defaults, if you want to improve this there are a few related options to be aware of:
1) Edit the toolbar and add "Path" dropdown
2) View menu -> Show path bar
3) Cmd + up/down arrows to navigate up and down the path hierarchy
But of course, when talking about how intuitive Macs are, having all that hidden by default doesn't exactly make it easy to understand where you are in the filesystem. It feels a bit like the Mac side of their desire to just not have a user visible filesystem on the iPad, which thankfully they've given up on it because shooting documents back and forth between apps via Share buttons was terrible.
But not peer to peer in any sort of automated syncing way. You'd end up with different versions of documents in different apps as you sent it from one to another.
The filesystem is super confusing to tons of users. The reason people put crap all over their desktops is because they "lose" it if they put it anywhere else, while the desktop always stays "where it is". I don't think anyone's come up with a good solution to that problem, yet (Apple's isn't very good, and Windows' similar moves with its defaults aren't any better) and we're far enough into computers being common that it doesn't look like a majority of users are ever going to get comfortable with the same abstractions and interfaces we're all comfortable with.
Believe it or not, the way the filesystem worked on the original Mac operating system was that things did stay where you put them. Open a disk and the folders on it could be put anywhere in that 2D space, and each folder's contents could similarly be anywhere in their virtual 2D space, and each disk/folder opened in its own window that even re-opened in exactly the same position with exactly the same size as when you last closed it.
I don't think the cultural convention of directories in Linux is well suited to spatial filesystem navigation. Still, it'd be nice to still have the option, especially with AppImage doing a reasonably job of approximating the one-file-application paradigm of Macs.
The normal procedure of clicking on a folder result in redirecting the existing file management window to the new directory is the only functional way to operate. The behavior of creating a new window per directory inevitably creates too many window management tasks in terms of constantly closing extra windows.
Also what size your file manager should be is a function of what else you have on the screen which is inevitably variable so you end up resizing and moving windows to fit in with an arrangement that is different than last time you opened that directory. It's vastly easier if you want 2 directories shown side by side is to just use the traditional split view.
The fact that size and position are arbitrarily chosen even if they are per directory means that there is no mental map between position and position in the filesystem hierarchy.
Spatial browsing is a poor metaphor based on nothing that never made any sense whatsoever.
That's a good point—that's probably the closest a file manager has come to being truly usable by most folks.
Relatedly, IMO iOS took a huge step backwards in UX when iOS7 moved away from a highly spatial interaction metaphor for practically the entire OS—by which I don't mean the skeuomorphism, exactly, but things like folders sliding the screen "open" when tapped, so that they had a sense of physical location within the main screen. Or "slide to unlock" looking like a physical slider so you didn't even need to read it to know what to do. The loss of the security blanket that was the physical (or at least faux-physical) home button has hurt it, too.
It was great until you had a disk shared between the large monitors at school and the tiny one you had at home. So long as all screens are the same sized and layed out the same it worked good. However any form of using two different computers and the whole thing started to fall apart. Throw in multiple monitors and it isn't possible to do this usefully.
It also only worked well when you only had a few files in any folder. If you have 100 files that are related in one folder and you can't find anything without sorting it alphabetically. Depending on how your brain organizes things this might not matter.
I think if you leave Finder with the defaults (icon view) it still does this. I think if you change the view, say, to list view, Finder may apply that view to all folders you haven't specifically chosen a view type for. I think if you specifically choose a type (like icons for your a folder of images) it stays that way, but it's not clear to me exactly what happens.
This seems on point. The conversation at the dawn of personal computing would have been:
> Where's file X for project A?
> On the floppy disk for project A.
And that more or less continued for most users through the 90s, but then it got confusing to the entry-level user:
> Where's file X for project A?
> In My Documents, under the folder "Project X".
Which, I'd bet, is one of the reasons why cloud-based editors have taken off - the file is "in Google Docs", rather than in a directory hierarchy on the filesystem. GDocs presents me with a more or less flat view of all of my documents. I hate this - I have to go over to Google Drive to organize them - but I can understand how it'd be much more approachable to the average user.
This is the way. However, I only found out about this after years of using Macs, I think by randomly happening to notice that functionality one day.
It's not obvious in the slightest. No affordance indication, no tooltip, no flashing indicator or walkthrough demonstration when you get a new Mac, nothing happens if you hover over it or click it, no real reason to think there'd be extra functionality in an unadorned window title, etc.
I like the hardware and I like the advantages of a *nix OS for dev stuff (compared to Windows - at least pre-WSL), but the only thing MacOS has going for it is looking graphically decent and having decent performance (as far as I can tell). The actual UX is quite odd and arcane in many ways. Definitely not intuitive.
This is the thing about Macs - people think they are intuitive because they have learned how to use them over X number of years. Including, I believe, those building the OS at Apple. But for a person who isn't familiar with them, they are absolutely not intuitive.
And any time there is a complaint, the community is like "Oh, dummy, just do this thing that is not obvious at all, how could you not figure that out?"
>This is the thing about Macs - people think they are intuitive because they have learned how to use them over X number of years
You can say that again. I never had to interact with a Mac in my life (Macs weren't popular in Eastern Europe so I grew up with Windows and Linux) and later in life at one job interview, the tech lead gave me his Macbook and told me to code a sorting function in JS and stepped out for 10 minutes. Within that time, I accidentally performed some swipe gesture on the trackpad which hid my code editor away with me unable to find it as I had no visible taskbar and all I had visible was a Chrome window so I started googling how to get my code window back. When the tech lead came back I apologized and told him I couldn't finish the task since I hid the code editor by accident and had to google how to use the OS.
I'm biased here of course, but IMHO for someone new to the OS, MacOS UX discoverability is worse than Windows or major Linux DEs.
I hate that stuff, it seems like every other minute I've moved my mouse too far and I'm suddenly in one of several completely different screens or views, I then need to figure out how to get back to where I was and perform the appropriate action, and then remember where I was beforehand.
I've annoyed a couple of people by disabling all their hot corners when I've used their Macs lol.
It goes both ways. I agree cmd click on the title is definitely less intuitive (hell, I just learned that now). If I were guiding a new user to macOS, I would instead show how to reveal the Path Bar on Finder which requires less memorization from the user. Not sure why that isn't enabled by default.
That or explain the arrow-key centric keyboard navigation, which has fewer exceptions than Explorer.
But there are plenty of shortcuts on Windows that are the way they are for historical reasons, not because of user-centric design.
Not OP, but I run elementary OS 5.1.7 Hera, built on Ubuntu 18.04.4 LTS, Linux 5.4.0-65-generic.
Its more stable than it used to be, but the desktop manager still keeps hanging every fortnight or so. Changing the brightness, right after unlocking my laptop is a recipe for getting frustrated, and eventually having to hard restart the computer. Other micro issues pop up every now and then.
Basically every laptop is unsupported or best effort / best luck on Linux (except System 76 and the like.) My brightness control keys use to work or not according to the kernel and the NVIDIA driver versions. I configured two hotkeys to increase and decrease backlightining with X11 and forgot about the original ones. However I never got a crash because of them. Maybe the screen froze a couple of times since Ubuntu 20.04, probably a video card crash (lots of windows.)
Oh I didn't install (on purpose) the NVIDIA drivers in my computer this time around. Last time, the brightness control would stop working, and the GPU would run a 100% of the time my computer was on. Drained battery in about 45 minutes.
Not OP, but I've noticed the same with Linux over the past year or two. Stability has taken a distinct dive for the worse.
Two different Ryzen APU based computers I've built running whatever Ubuntu happened to be the latest. Tried both KDE and XFCE and they freeze about 1-2 times a week. The computers haven't crashed and if you ssh in everything seems to be running fine, but mouse/keyboard/screen are completely frozen. One computer dual boots Windows and I can run Windows for a month on it without rebooting and it never misses a beat.
Linux rarely crashes. What it does do is handle low memory situations really badly. Simultaneously browsers have got way more memory hungry.
I have left firefox overnight and had a tab decide it would like to eat all my memory.
Linux does have an oom killer to deal with out of memory situations but it will kick in halfway to the heat death of the universe and you will reboot first.
Oom looks just like a crash the UI is frozen however if the offender is killed everything actually is working.
The solution is a userspace oom daemon like earlyoom that kicks in before you actually run entirely out of memory and knows not to kill things like X.
I like how the OOM killer stays up to date with its list of the worst possible processes to kill first. Back in the day, it used to prioritize X, bash, and ssh. Now it extends that to include newer pieces of essential infrastructure like "kubelet".
It's careful attention to detail like this that keeps Linux relevant for the next generation!
(I'm kidding, of course. I was recently trying to reproduce some Node test flakiness that only happened on CI, which has limited resources and exposes timing sensitivity. I had trouble getting this to happen on my 32 core workstation, so I decided to run 100 copies of the tests in parallel which definitely reproduced the issue -- and ran the machine out of memory. The OOM killer kicked in, and chose to kill all the extra Node processes without killing my SSH session, which was nice of it.)
I think a much more common problem than OOM is X itself. It ties programs tightly together, making it trivial for one badly behaving process to take down all processes with a GUI.
It seems intuitively true that you would always have SOMETHING acting as a go between video driver and all clients and if this crashed your graphical interface goes down unless you have something that acts as an interface that can in turn restart the component. A buggy client already shouldn't actually take down your X server but a bug in X obviously can.
It sounds odd to me to describe applications relying on a toolkit like QT/GTK which can run in dozens of different environments which in turn run on both X11 and Wayland which in turn can talk to a variety of different GPU drivers as tightly coupled.
Yes I mean install and enable by default. Look at the experience TulliusCicero had. People are extremely going to reasonably assume Linux freezes all the time not Firefox ate all my memory and Linux doesn't have a good story for handling oom.
This also seems to be the norm in user space software. I've read a lot of source code where people simply assume malloc never fails. Tried to discuss this on freenode once, apparently nobody knows what to do in case the system is out of memory. Why can't it gracefully degrade?
Arguably they could degrade more gracefully by just starting slightly sooner when they have some resources to manage but they successfully ignored the problem until it became someone else's problem. At this point I don't know that any solution would be much better than simply running a daemon like earlyoom in practice. I'm just surprised that desktop distros ship with Firefox which absolutely can in edge cases leak gigabytes of memory but no good way to deal with misbehaving applications after memory is exhausted.
I agree that Finder is somewhat weird in regard to hierarchies, but it all makes sense if you get to know it: basically, you can move around with CMD+Arrow. Up goes up a directory, down goes down a directory (or opens the file). Left / Right go forward / back in history, like a browser.
I'm not sure Windows is such a great example in the conversation about file systems, what with its "collections" and abstract hierarchy which is sometimes upside down and somewhat – but not fully! – circular.
Open an explorer window, click on your name under "quick access". You're in the home directory. You also have a "Desktop" folder there. Go in there. You see your desktop files. So far so good.
Now go back to your user folder and click "up". You're now in "desktop". What?! Only now, there's other stuff in there. How many desktops are there?!
Now go back to your user folder, choose any folder. Click on the address bar. C:\users\your_name\your_folder. Click twice "up", you expect to be in C:\users, right? Ha!
Now type C:\users\your_name\your_folder, or browse through the C:\ in the left pane. Click the address bar and compare with earlier. Now click up. Very intuitive. Depending on how you got somewhere, your apparent hierarchy is not the same.
Back to the "quick collection" thing, there's a desktop entry there. Click it. Looks like the first desktop folder, so no surprise here, right?. Click up. You end up in "my computer"!
Now, do the same operations in Finder. How many different desktops are there? Not sure how Windows is more logical or user-friendly.
I side with the other poster who said that most "common users" just don't understand file systems, and so they put everything on the desktop because it doesn't go away.
> basically, you can move around with CMD+Arrow. Up goes up a directory, down goes down a directory (or opens the file). Left / Right go forward / back in history, like a browser.
This is really helpful to know - it's one of my biggest bugaboos about using Finder & navigating the Mac GUI.
On the other hand, I suspect this kind of obscure key-based shortcut is a big part of why Macs don't feel intuitive to a lot of users. How could I have known this shortcut exists? It's not broadcast anywhere obvious. My options for finding all these obscure shortcuts aren't great. I could scroll through a submenu in the Settings pane, hoping to find something that looks like it says the thing I'm trying to do (and then that I can figure out what keys it means, since Apple key symbology is VERY arcane). I could stumble across a mention of the shortcut in a forum like this. Or I could Google in the hope of finding something - though that assumes I believe it's doable in the first place, which I didn't in this particular case.
It would also help if Apple chose easier / more intuitive keyboard shortcuts. A "shortcut" which both is the only way to do something, and also requires pressing a minimum of four seemingly-random keys, is not a shortcut at all - it's a mental load on the user that they just have to hold in their heads forever.
Yeah, I remember being frustrated about the discoverability when I started using Mac OS.
Shortcuts mostly appear in the menus, but I remember one in particular being elusive: cmd + down. I've found it out by asking a friend.
I think there is supposed to be a method to the madness, though it's maybe less and less clear nowadays, especially with applications that don't implement them correctly (such as MS Office, electron apps, etc) and people being very used to Windows' conventions.
For example, the modifier keys' names are usually an indication of what you can achieve with them.
CMD (the "flower-like" key, directly next to the space bar) is usually the one used to produce... commands. As in Copy, Save, etc.
Then you have your ALTernative / Option, which usually modifies some other key's usual behaviour. You can obtain dead keys with it. ALT+e / e = é. etc. It also works in menus to obtain alternative actions. You can click a menu, press alt, and see the entries change.
And CTRL deals with control characters. ctrl-c in the terminal, line editing (ctrl-a in any text field goes to the beginning of the line, etc). It's not clear to me why right click is obtained with control and not alt, though...
I think it's in the "mental model". You're kind of "expected" to know that "option" will produce an "optional / alternate" behavior. It's kind of like windows. How are you supposed to know that win+left will move the window to the side?
At least, on macOS, if you press OPT, the entries will change. On Windows, if you click right → delete, the file isn't deleted. It's moved to the recycle bin. "How are you supposed to know that?". On Mac, it says "move to trash" or similar. Now say you don't want that. If you hold Shift and click delete, it actually deletes it. But if you hold Shift while looking at the Windows menu, it still says "delete".
There are quite a lot of "have to know" things in other OSs, too. They each come with a mental model which may be closer or further from the user's.
I think the issues we see nowadays come up because many apps work the same everywhere, and people may switch between systems more often, so figure since <app> works the same, everything works the same.
It's also hard to think that what comes naturally is actually a mental model that's been ingrained and not something "absolute".
I guess this is why computers used to have manuals, but who reads those anymore?
Yeah, I ultimately don’t understand the complaints about unintuitiveness: what makes a system intuitive is that you’ve internalized its conventions. macOS has its own set of conventions and they apply pretty consistently across Apple’s first-party applications and native (Cocoa) applications. I learned most of them when I switched to Macs in ‘08 and they’re now “intuitive” to me and they “just work” in most applications I use. I went through the same learning process when I was about seven on Windows and when I was like 13 on Linux.
> How are you supposed to know that win+left will move the window to the side?
You're not. Shortcuts are a power user thing. If you want to move the window you drag it.
> There are quite a lot of "have to know" things in other OSs, too.
Oh definitely. It just seems to me that OSX is exceptionally bad at telegraphing these things. On windows and even linux most all features have something visible to clue you in to their existence. OSX seems to do its best to hide things instead.
By default, windows hides file extensions and pushes Office to be OneDrive first.
The problem with these features is that people have varying needs and don’t understand or respect what they are! Filing is a great example, everyone keeps files, but most people have no organization. That’s why once upon a time companies hired people to file things. It’s also why Apple tried to kill the file metaphor for iOS.
MacOS has the wacky finder UI, but the search is best in class and once people discover it, they just go away and do their thing.
Mac user here. I've never given it much thought but you're right.
Return is a holdover from typewriters. It means "return the carriage to the left margin". I'm surprised the Mac keyboard doesn't say "Enter". It seems like a much more accurate word to describe what the button does.
Yes, "Return" applies in the context of editing text (return the cursor to left margin) but not in any other context on a computer I can think of.
I wonder why they continue to label it return and not enter.
/end random musing
edit: Downthread, someone provided a link to a StackOverflow page explaining how MacOS treats enter and return differently in some rare instances (it's program specific).
So true, this is a bizarre choice that tells the user that renaming a folder is more important and more frequent than navigating. It makes keyboard navigating in the Finder pretty annoying (unless you only live in column view, which feels very claustrophobic to me). IMO the Finder has a bunch of bad UX, it’s like they never figured out what to do with it during the OSX transition, and then refused to improve it or do anything to it to change old behavior or take it closer to what any other OSes had done.
All it means is that to rename you press enter, and to open you press command-o. It works perfectly fine for keyboard navigation.
After using both for a long time (Windows for 30 years (!) and Mac OS for 16), I actually like the Mac OS way a bit better. In my usage renaming is a very common operation and I don't have F keys on my usual keyboard (renaming in Windows is F2).
I don't disagree with your opinion, there's nothing wrong with liking command-o for nav.
But what I mean is that Finder navigating uses an unintuitive key chord you have to learn, while renaming uses a single key, and a large and very common/obvious/intuitive one. This does in fact mean the UX is declaring which one they expect to be more common. I'm not saying renaming is uncommon, but for me it's nowhere near the usage of navigating into a folder. Are you saying you're renaming folders more often than browsing into them? (How do you get to the folder you want to rename?)
Both Windows and Linux GUI folder browsers use the Enter key to navigate, and so do many other tree browser UIs including our web browsers. It's very common and very reasonable to expect Enter to navigate to the thing you've selected. This expectation and ecosystem of navigating this way means that Mac's Finder stands out as different and unintuitive, even within a Mac-only set of applications. I love my Mac, and I've also used both Windows and Mac since they first existed ... both for 35 years. But today's Finder is definitely weird and anachronistic compared nearly all other modern file browsers.
I use Command+o to open a file and Command+p to print a file. It's also kinda handy to make a duplicate of a file using Command+d. Of course deleting a file is Command+Delete and ejecting a volume is Command+e. For consistency you'd think renaming a file would be Command+r but at some point in time (the first Mac?) they decided on expediency and made it Enter instead.
Command-up arrow moves up a directory level. Command-down arrow makes a logical choice for moving down a directory level, and since moving down a directory is the same as opening that directory, it follows command down would also open a file.
Whether renaming as “enter” is a good shortcut or not, I think the navigation ones are perfectly reasonable in that if you learn one of them, it’s opposite is easily guessed.
Your comment would have had more relevance 30 years ago but these days I think it's fine to use the terms interchangeably given 99.99999% of software these days use those keys interchangeably.
Oh thanks, that's fascinating, I thought they were the same thing. Reading the answers on that page, it sounds like there are quite a few programs in common use (e.g. Final Cut Pro) that treat ENTER and RETURN differently. I have both keys on this PC clone keyboard plugged into a Mac mini, so maybe I'll be able to use the numpad's ENTER for keyboard shortcuts. Thank you!
I don't know anyone that uses Cmd+Down. Cmd+O tends to be the popular choice.
Because you're always in an app in macOS, Cmd+O is the more consistent choice: every app you're in will use Cmd+O for "open." In Finder, what you're opening is apps or files, so it works.
Return for rename makes sense in a more subtle way.
Besides opening a file, there are two "main" actions you'll use in Finder: renaming files, and quick-playing files. In a dialogue box, you'll either use Return or Spacebar (the former for triggering the highlighted button, the latter for another button you highlight with the Tab key).
Consider again the consistency-across-apps argument. "Rename" isn't a super common command in all kinds of apps (a DAW will allow you to rename tracks, but that idea doesn't really apply to a text editor or IDE), so using Cmd+R in Finder for "rename" isn't necessarily great for consistency, considering that apps in general will almost surely bind something to Cmd+R ("run" or something like that).
Due to the aforementioned dialogue box pattern, Spacebar or Return are the obvious choices for rename, simply by virtue of being used so much.
Spacebar technically makes more sense because quick-play is adjacent to opening a file, but the ergonomics of "Spacebar = play" across so much media makes it the obvious choice for that. So, Return it is.
I think this is a common view held by experienced computer users, because they don't consider which parts of their own usage patterns are a component of their advanced knowledge, and which are inherent to all users.
For example: an experienced user is more likely to notice that closing a window in macOS backgrounds the app, and more likely to figure out how to fully exit the app process completely (either via Cmd+Q or menu>Quit). Given that, an experienced user is less likely to grow accustomed to all of their apps being in a backgrounded state, and find Finders forced background state unusual/exceptional.
In contrast, an inexperienced computer user will likely leave all apps they use open all the time (possibly not realising they're running) and as such grow more quickly accustomed to having to Option+N for everything (not just Finder).
I'm re-reading my own comment as both replies to it seem to have taken the opposite point that I intended, but I can't see where I said the macOS behaviour is bad. I personally like it (though I wasn't saying that either).
My only point was that it being less intuitive for more techy users doesn't mean it's not generally very intuitive for the majority.
I think you mean “experienced Windows user using macOS”. What you describe are consistent design choices on the Mac. If you flipped things around and only knew Macs and went to Windows, you might be surprised that closing a window there exits an app! There’s no reason one behavior is more correct than the other.
macOS has those also, programs can live on the menu bar.
But in macOS, closing the last window basically never exits the program. Even for a program like Element, which is just an Electron view, closing the window doesn't quit the program, even though what's left over is useless: there's no way to relaunch the Electron pane except to quit and start it again.
This is just how macOS works: if you want to quit, you type Cmd-Q, if you want to close windows, red button or Cmd-W, and closing windows won't quit your program.
There is one example of really bad app behavior when the last window is closed and it's one that Apple makes themselves: QuickTime Player.
If you open up QuickTime Player and then play back a video, then close the video, as soon as you background the app, it auto-quits itself. I wonder if they made it behave this way at some point to get around a memory leak. It's such an unexpected thing and it infuriates me each time I encounter it.
Did you open and play back a video first? If you just open QuickTime Player and don't interact with it, it does stay open if you switch apps. If you open a video, then close it, the app closes if you switch to a different app. I just tried it again and that's how it behaved. (I'm running Catalina still, so they may have fixed it in Big Sur.)
No idea. I've seen it behave this way for at least the past year. I just tried it on a different Mac and it behaves similarly, except this other Mac causes QT to open up the File Open dialog immediately on launch. (Version 10.5 of QuickTime player for me too. macOS 10.15.7 though.)
> But in macOS, closing the last window basically never exits the program
There's plenty (an increasing number, IME) of Windows apps that work that way, but mostly if an app exists to facilitate some kind of user interaction via a UI and there's no worries open there's no reason for it to be open, so no windows = closed app is a fairly same convention.
> Even for a program like Element, which is just an Electron view, closing the window doesn't quit the program, even though what's left over is useless:
I think that last part pretty well illustrates why “closing all windows is not closing the app”, while it make sense in many cases, is not a great model to be applied inflexibly.
I mentioned that Element is just an Electron view because it doesn't behave like a native Mac app. The correct thing to do is to offer a menu item which would bring the view back.
VLC is a good example of an app which works correctly in this way. There's only the one window, which shows either the playlist or the video. If you close it, VLC stays open, and there's a menu item which will bring it back.
Of course VLC can also open files, so Cmd-O is useful here, and Element doesn't happen to support more than one window... because it's a browser view dressed as a Mac app. If it were native, it would be a no-brainer to support multiple windows, each with a given user account.
So yes, there are some edge cases where an application offers exactly one window, and there's no reason to close that window instead of closing the app. But the Mac-native thing to do is to offer a menu item to bring that window back, instead of breaking consistency by having that program just disappear on you when you close the window.
I didn't imply otherwise? Did you mean to reply to the gp comment?
I'd say both behaviours could be equally surprising to any user, regardless of their previous OS biases but either way that's not really related to the point I was making.
I was just saying that an inexperienced user will notice technical details less (e.g. the ramifications of processes continuing to run in the background without windows, the dock status indicators showing they're still open, the fact they show up in the app switcher, etc.) and as such won't be inclined to "take control" of that default behaviour in a way that an experienced user might, due to their heightened awareness of it.
Ah, my mistake. I misread your comment since you mentioned generally "experienced users" and then mentioned specific macOS details that might be confusing for experienced Windows users. I see now what you meant.
Reading all the comments as someone who grew up on macs and only encountered windows much later on, all the comments here are quite amusing because it's rather clear that 95% of people commenting are windows users first who encountered mac later and wonder why it's not windows. To be fair, mac used to be pretty fringe so it's expected most people would build their mental models around windows traditions by the time they started using mac.
> You can also blend the two, but closing all windows you leave, but leave open forever when the system forces a switch.
This was my point. I don't think "Leave all windows open forever" is specifically a type of novice user: I've met expert users who do this. But I was rather focused on the "Leave all macOS apps open forever" not because they're content with apps being open, but simply because it's non-obvious that the apps are running.
e.g. my mother is a "close everything" user: she even manually logs out of all online sessions immediately whenever she's finished with that tab (often entering credentials again many times in a browsing session if she needs to return to a site). She really can't stand having multiple things active simultaneously. She leaves all apps running (windowlessly) all the time on macOS. She would not be happy if I told her they were still running in the background.
I agree that there's a lot of counter intuitive if not worse UI ideas.
But it's surrounded by tons of superb tricks. Remember the live document preview years ago ?
Also the GUI guidelines made the system visually more appealing.
The compositor is also weird, I cannot really explain but when I use a Mac I don't see layers.. I don't feel like i'm clicking on a button, then an event is sent, then some logic occurs.. maybe it's only subjective bias (can't be 100%) but it feels more direct. Maybe they tailored the graphical subsystem / compositor to ensure extremely low latency I can't say.. but, even after using countless machines and countless desktop environments.. the first time I used a mac I felt something very different. Not better .. but deeply different.
As someone who recently switched to MacOs (not by their own choice) there are hundreds of little annoying, broken or inconsistent OS things I find.
One of my favorites just happened yesterday with finder - I was trying to figure out how to rename a file, well the usual fx keys aren't doing it so the common process was to go to the toolbar context menu where hotkey is indicated next to the action's text. Rename for some reason had no hotkey indication! [1] so naturally I'm thinking it's somehow not bounded, google around for hotkey editing etc just to findout it's the least obvious key: return.
When you say the 'usual' function keys... do you really mean some other system's function keys? Why would you expect macOS to use the same function keys as a different system? There's no standards body for these things.
Yes there is -- it's called CUA (Common User Access)
"The subset of CUA implemented in Microsoft Windows or OSF/Motif is generally considered a de facto standard to be followed by any new Unix GUI environment."
Yes, I can confirm that it's been that way (almost) since the beginning.
Apparently[1] the original intent was to allow the user to just type and rename the file, but the enter key was quickly added after they noticed that the display models all had garbage filenames. It was an early tweak that stuck (much to the chagrin of those of us who also use other systems). Why they never added it to the context menu is beyond me.
On literally every other operating system. I've used dozens of platforms, some of them pretty obscure, some of them hobbyist, some of them were purpose built for hardware that stopped being manufactured 20, 30 or more years ago, and all of them supported return as a trigger in menus, be it graphical or text based. Finder really is the odd ball with regards to binding it to rename.
Well, it makes total sense in one way - ENTER toggles name editing. After you change a file name, you press ENTER to 'save' the new name and finish editing. That seems logical, I think. So why not have the same key to start editing the name too? In the way PLAY/STOP are usually the same button etc.
Also, you use cod+down to open a file. Just like you use cmd+down to enter a directory. You’re going “down” into the directory (to view its content), and if you go “down” into the file it should be opened with its default application (to view its content). Alternatively, cmd+down “activates” the directory so you want the same shortcut to “activate” files.
I understand the frustration and I'm with you that Finder is atrocious.
My head-cannon about this is that for consistency within macos, all actions must be cmd+something, so is cmd+O for opening a file. In the terminal you can also use the "open" command which opens the file or the directory (I use "open ." a lot, I find faster navigating in the shell that in the finder).
Not showing the shortcut key for rename is definitely dumb. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was because of some silly reason like a high level designer at Apple thought it wouldn't match the cmd paradigm, and so would rather not show it (even though there are plenty of existing exceptions elsewhere).
But I would argue F2 is less obvious. It's only obvious if you learned it at some point or if you were there when F2 was chosen. Enter is at least a normal text editing key for day to day typing, and it's already the bookend key to finish typing a new name.
I only mentioned Fx keys in passing - my point was that they key was not present in the context menu which is a very common idiom to indicate action is not bound to any key. If all actions have key and this one doesn't: the first natural though is, well, this action has no key. The fact that it's leftout and hundreds of other similar anectodes really shows off that macos is not any more magically intuative than any other OS and has lots of space to grow.
I'm curious, why didn't you click on the filename after it has been selected? That initiates rename on both Finder and Explorer, as well as other applications that edit that sort of text. (Except not OpenOffice's spreadsheet tabs, grrr)
As someone who only encountered windows after a decade of using mac and started using windows (not by their own choice) there are hundreds of little annoying, broken or inconsistent OS things I find.
Now I've used windows for a decade, and I still overall dislike it. But that doesn't mean these things are done "wrong" they are just done differently and not how I'd expect.
Windows doesn't place the light switches where I'm accustomed to. For example hy are there so many menus bars on each window. It's simpler to always know where the menu is at the top and it creates less screen clutter. Why does windows quit a program when close the document. If I wanted to quit it, I would have quit it. I just wanted a new document. These are just a few of the things that aren't bad but just aren't the philosophy I'd come to expect. Control-alt-delete to log in? Why?! I can't hit that one handed easily! Good thing I have two hands. And yeah bash or shell is kinda mess, but powershell is a verbose and has bureaucratic feel. It's just not my cup of tea but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Yeah there is, but the default is wrong. Also, you can't flip the switch because it's too busy locking up the thread doing a full scan of your filesystem.
First, not going to claim that macOS is "intuitive", because my in my experience, "intuitive" usually means very different things to different people.
As a long-time Mac, Windows, and Linux user... I'll say that there are plenty of random broken things on the Mac, but there are also a few nice things that work very consistently on the Mac, but you'd never think to try them because you're used to them not working on Linux or Windows. So if you have been using Linux or Windows a long time, you will probably find macOS frustrating, just for the reason that it is different from what you are used to, and not because there are fundamental flaws with macOS or Windows.
Just an example of a couple simple things that are easy on a Mac, but hard on Linux/Windows: saving a file to a specific location. Let's say you have a Finder window open, and an unsaved document open in an application, and you want to save the open document to the folder that's open in the Finder.
1. You could go to the app and hit save, bringing up the save dialog, and then drag the folder (perhaps from the icon in the title bar) into the save dialog. This moves the save dialog to point to that folder.
2. You could save the file somewhere else, and drag the file (perhaps from the icon in the title bar) into the folder.
3. You could save the file on the desktop, and then move it into the desired folder.
I have not really ever figured out a nice way to do this on Windows. I often end up having to navigate through save dialogs on Linux and Windows and it seems unnecessary. Windows certainly doesn't let you move files that are open, which is a frustrating restriction when you run into it.
> Why is it that when I click Finder, nothing actually opens?
It brings Finder forward, and opens a new window if there are no Finder windows open, which is the same behavior as other Mac apps.
> Don't even get me started on the sort options. What kind of file manager applies a Sort view to every single directory, instead of the one you actually set the Sort view to?
Command J lets you set the view options, it's per-directory and includes sorting & grouping. Per-directory options don't do anything in column view. I'm not sure what you're doing, so I don't know what's missing. I switched to column view in the early 2000s and only occasionally switch to list view when I need to sort a massive folder by file sizes (which, unfortunately, requires command-J and checking "calculate all sizes", which is not something you'd know to look for).
>You could save the file somewhere else, and drag the file (perhaps from the icon in the title bar) into the folder.
You can do this in Windows. Save the file, open the save dialog again, drag the file icon to the Explorer window with the folder you want open. Hold shift to toggle copy/move.
I was unable to reproduce your success. I just tested in GEdit, it failed, just as I expected.
I could move the file, but this broke the association with the open document. I saved to ~/test.txt, then moved it to ~/Documents/test.txt, and saved a second time. The second time I saved it, it saved the file to ~/test.txt, which is incorrect and useless. Now I have two files, but no action I took as a user should have created two files--moving a file should not create a second copy, and saving an open file should not have created a second copy, so why should moving and saving create a second copy?
On Windows, you typically get an error message, because you can't move an open file. (Not all applications keep the file open, so this doesn't always happen.) Personally, I think that enforcing exclusive locks is the worst, most significant design flaw in the entire history of the Windows operating system.
Only on macOS do you get the nice, expected behavior... it does not matter if you move a file while it is open in an application. When a file is open in an application, the open file is associated with the file, not with the pathname. You can rename a file in the Finder or reorganize a bunch of files in the Finder (or do the same in the terminal) and it does not matter whether those files are open in any applications. You can reorganize files in the Finder, and then when you save open documents, they save to the new location, not the old one. If you rename files in the Finder or rename a bunch of files with a script in the terminal, the windows for open documents you renamed will update their titles to match the new names.
The problem here is that (opinion time) the standard filesystem API is a really terrible interface. What you want is some way to create durable references to files. File handles can do that, but only while your application is open. Paths can do it while your application is closed, but the reference is lost if you move the file. On macOS, there's a standard API which provides something more persistent than file handles and more durable than paths. I think they're called "bookmarks" now, but they used to be called "aliases".
> You could save the file somewhere else, and drag the file (perhaps from the icon in the title bar) into the folder.
In RiscOS, drag-n-drop saving was the norm. You were not presented with a dialog, just an icon you could drag wherever you wanted the file to go. To me, this seems like a much more logical way to work with the desktop folder/file metaphor.
In Windows I would copy the folder path from Explorer and paste it into the save dialog and press enter, which will cause the save dialog to go to that folder.
I think you're going to have to provide some more details, because I'm trying 1, 2, and 3 in GTK and I can't get ANY of the three options to work.
1. I have a folder open in Gnome's "Files" app. I can't drag it into the dialog--there's nothing draggable. I could go up a level to the enclosing folder, drag the child folder into the save folder, and then go back down a level to the child folder... these extra steps seem a bit unnecessary. So it's doable, but clunky.
2. I saved a file in GEdit somewhere else. How do I move it? There is nothing to drag. On macOS, there is an icon in the title bar of the window (called the proxy icon) that can be dragged where you like.
3. I saved the file in GEdit on the desktop as ~/Desktop/file.txt, then moved it to ~/.../.../file.txt. Then I made some more changes in GEdit, and saved it again... now I have two files! GEdit was not aware that the file had moved, and when I saved it, it created a second copy of the file, which is unexpected and wrong.
If this is working for you, perhaps you could share the exact steps?
I think one of the problems here is that on Linux, there is no real way to drag an open object... you can only drag things out of containers, but you can't drag things without first opening the container. For example, you can't drag an open folder into a save window, you have to first open the parent folder. You also can't drag an open document into an open window, you have to open the parent folder. There's not even a clear way to do that--on macOS, you can command-click the name in the title bar of the window and select the parent folder from the drop-down... not saying this is intuitive, but it does work which is a massive step up from not working at all.
With 1 I think you're right, but you can also drag any file in the folder and it will just locate and highlight it in the GTK filepicker, not actually open it, which achieves the same thing. In Thunar I can also drag the currently open folder (or any parent) from the breadcrumb bar, but this doesn't work in Dolphin.
With 2 and 3 - yes you're right I didn't realise that was how it worked on macos! Those are both interesting features I haven't seen elsewhere. Although I think 3 would be possible to implement say in gedit, as the inode of the file you save shouldn't change when you move it in the file manager, everything in Linux is usually path-based so this might be kind of unexpected.
On macOS, there's something which I think is called a "bookmark" these days but which used to be called an "alias", and it's used to record a reference to a file. It's basically a data structure that contains a bunch of metadata for a file, so if the file moves, there's a fallback process which locates the file and updates the data structure with the new metadata. It's fairly simple as you'd expect, although it's much more than just an inode. The data structure can just be an object in memory or it can be serialized to a file on disk.
You could implement this yourself on Linux, for sure, but it's been around on macOS since System 7 appeared in 1991 and everything uses it.
> 1. You could go to the app and hit save, bringing up the save dialog, and then drag the folder (perhaps from the icon in the title bar) into the save dialog. This moves the save dialog to point to that folder.
I don't think drag and drop is the most intuitive, but it's way worse with Windows. I think there are at least four iterations of those Open/Save windows (dating to Windows 95).
A tool called Direct Folders [1] adds a recent menu that shows all open folders and revenge, making those windows slightly more usable
I used Macs exclusively from MacOS 7 up until about 3 years ago. And I will always stand by Macs were easier to use, more consistent and more intuitive before OSX. Yes, the OS was archaic architecturally and it was downright primitive in many ways. But the UX was far superior.
Finder is bizarre in that it hasn't really changed much at all in 20+ years.
1. If you click Finder and nothing opens, it means you already have a Finder window open somewhere or your device is broken. It's dumb and I wish it just opened a Finder window. As far as I know, there's no way to do this without scripting.
2. Right-click on the folder name in a Finder window to see and go up the folder hierarchy.
3. Make sure Finder is active and go to the View menu and select Show Path Bar.
4. I'm not sure what you're talking about with Sort View here, but Windows works the same as macOS and on both platforms, you can have it both ways.
I've noticed a lot of convergence these days. There aren't a lot of differences between iOS and Android, Mac OS and Windows, PS5 and Xbox.
I used Mac OS 7 and 8 extensively back in the day, and despite some UI similarities it was a totally different experience from Windows machines. The computers had totally different ports (parallel and ps/2 vs proprietary mac connectors), and a different set of software (Clarisworks vs Word Perfect). There were even developers who made games just for Macs like Ambrosia Software.
Nowadays, you can basically use the same software (Chrome, Slack, VSCode, Steam) on Windows, Mac, or Linux. And can share a USB-C hub between a Macbook and a Dell.
I for the love of me, can't understand how to use a macbook. I don't mean being productive on it. I mean: how to open something or how clicks work.
It might simply be the fact that I've never used a mac as a primary device. But, clicks, navigating the explorer and settings menus seem to be a lot simpler on windows. It also seems to be almost malicious in punishing you for using something that isn't a 1st party application.
The only other time a software has made me feel so incompetent is shitty TV UIs and Snapchat.
I can see why it is loved by people deeply invested in the walled garden and programmers who get a happy marriage of Linux and mature consumer OS. But, I would find it hard to recommend a macbook to someone who didn't lie in those 2 camps.
It's not even great for programming these days. Docker on Linux or even Windows is a walk in the park compared to the horror show of slowness (https://github.com/docker/roadmap/issues/7) and missing features that it is on Mac.
Amongst other gripes people have mentioned (and I agree with), here's another:
cut. There does not seem to be a way to cut and paste a file/folder. The best I could figure out is to drag the icons, hold down the finger, and move the cursor to the desired folder on the sidebar (or another window) and release the finger. This is either extremely difficult to pull of, or I am less dexterous than I think I am.
Why not have cut as an option in the drop down menu? I really can't figure this one out. What UX mantra suggests this.
Also, dragging files around is also a difficult feat to overcome. You either press down too hard (end up opening all selected files in their target applications -- RIP ram, let's restart the computer), or too gently and nothing happens.
This was one of my big gripes about MacOS when I had to use it for work. Evidently what you need to do is copy the file, then hold down OPT (along with CMD-V) when you paste it. You'll hear a sound effect that tells you it worked.
If you right click to open the context menu, and press OPT, you'll even see the "paste item" option turn into "move item".
It's 100% the wrong way to do it. Maddeningly wrong. In a world where CTRL-X hadn't existed for decades, and Apple's way of doing it was the norm, if someone came along and "invented" CTRL-X for the cut command, it would be universally recognized as an improvement.
Pressing Cmd+C means I've "grabbed the file." Now I can decide what I want to do with it. I might want to just move it (cut/paste = opt+cmd+v), or I might want to copy it (copy/paste = cmd+v). But the fact is, I can change my mind mid-action.
Drag and drop has steadily gotten harder to use over the years. I have no explanation for it, it's maddening.
Not cutting files is deliberate, I think. What should the OS do if you cut files, and then don't paste them and cut something else? Put them back, put them in the Trash?
A sibling comment pointed out that there's a magic incantation for "paste and delete", but clearly the Mac way to do it is drag and drop.
Which used to be dead easy, and now I'm lucky if I get it the first time.
"Cutting" is a no good, terrible idea, but a good idea would be to allow a "Grab", and then let the user navigate elsewhere and "Move grabbed item here." Mac doesn't have that because it breaks the visual/spatial metaphor.
Of course, "Copy" does too, yet Mac allows that...
I don't think that's why it doesn't exist, it's more that copy/cut/paste makes sense for most things, and the cut part is bad for files, so 'grab' wouldn't be very reusable elsewhere in the OS. Or if we're being real, they just don't have it because changing Finder is a very low priority for the company.
But I agree with you that it would be a good feature for Finder! Finder is missing a lot of useful stuff, it basically hasn't changed, and when it has it isn't for the better.
While we're dreaming, a great implementation of "grab" would be to have a differently-shaped window with just a doc handle and a close button on it, and the grabbed documents jump from the Finder window to the grab window. Then you can drag and drop the doc handle, or hit the "move grabbed items" hotkey, and the grabbed files/folders would jump into the new location. Or if you close the grab window they all jump back to where they were.
Grab window floats on top of everything else in Finder, so you can't lose track of it, and if you close it the files always go home, and you can only have one at a time.
That's a fair point. But a lot of our computer interactions are, now, so intuitive since they exist on other platforms, it just irksome if they don't exist on Mac.
> What should the OS do if you cut files, and then don't paste them and cut something else?
Windows, and common linux file managers leave the files in place in this scenario. Its not the most intuitive thing, but people (i think) understand this is what'll happen if you cut something and then cut something again.
> magic incantation
About that. I love how a combination of control, alt, command, function and tab keys can make you into a keyboard ninja but I also can't help but feel that it's a bit much. For the first few months after getting a mac, about 20-30% of my search engine queries were about these keyboard shortcuts. It's a steep slope. And the combinations often do something very fundamental that you often use tens of time a day. For instance, I was today years old when I realize that 'command+down' opens a file.
the only possible thing I can think of that can explain this is that if you cut and then forget about the item, it just disappears eventually (reboot, copy other item, whatever).
that's one thing when it's copied text from some web page, but quite another when it's a file or folder.
I'm not sure if other OS's do this. If you cut something on Windows Explorer (files or folders), they get somewhat greyed out. If you then paste them somewhere, they move. If you don't -- as in, you restart the computer, cut something else etc, the files stop being greyed out and return to their normal color. It's intuitive, and you don't lose your files.
Afaik, no OSs would delete the file once it's marked as cut. But there is a chance you accidentally move a file, which is worse than accidentally copying/duplicating one. In the latter case you just delete it but for moving you now need to figure out the original location.
The Finder is atrocious. It's the worst default macOS app and probably the worst program period I've ever used. It's been so dumbed down that it's basically unusable for anyone slightly experienced.
- There's no way to create an empty file
- There's no easy way to cut a file/folder (Cmd-x doesn't work)
- There's no (?) way to keep everything consistently sorted and aligned
- ~~Tags are useless and just take up space for nothing~~ This one is entirely subjective. I retract it.
- No "parent folder"...
There's some great features in Finder but it sucks at so many things it's just frustrating to use. Windows Explorer is infinitely better. It has less cool features (no tabs for instance) but is so much better to actually use.
I get that some features are hidden to avoid confusing non savvy users, but preventing experimented users to do basic stuff is criminal.
Create it for what? To use to launch the app that handles it? Just open the respective app and save an empty or unedited file.
>- There's no easy way to cut a file/folder (Cmd-x doesn't work)
Copy as regularly (Cmd-C), and use Option-Cmd-V to move the file where you want to.
>- There's no (?) way to keep everything consistently sorted and aligned
Not sure what you mean.
>- Tags are useless and just take up space for nothing
They're useful if you use them. Many people do use them. What exactly would you do with that "space" anyway? It's not like they take space in your apartment. It's a UI element which you can use or not use.
>- No "parent folder"...
Cmd+up arrow or Go -> Enclosing Folder.
Looks like all of the complains are basically "they're not where they was on Windows".
You successfully managed to confirm all of the parent's complaints by showing that they aren't achievable in Finder, or don't follow a consistent convention and have to be done some other way.
What's wrong with command-up to go to the enclosing folder? As the poster stated, you don't even need to use the keyboard shortcut, there's a menu item.
If I'm in a GUI app, I'm navigating with the mouse. Having to take my hand off the mouse to type Cmd+Up is not good UX for such a common command as "cd ..".
It might "confirm" the complaints but it also invalidates them. Fighting against the way something works isn't particularly valid, and is often ignorance (in the "don't know" way, not the obnoxious way). The guy helped with some knowledge.
This goes both ways. There have been whiny posts by Mac users who go to Windows (or from iOS to Android) and then gripe and complain about everything that isn't what they're accustomed to. It's just as silly.
> Looks like all of the complains are basically "they're not where they was on Windows".
Well... yeah kinda but not only. Windows does some things better, and it seems like a good idea to copy good UX paradigms wherever they come from. Also for some of these your answere is "why do you want to do this?" or "use some obscure keyboard magic". I want to because I want to. Sometimes I'm in a folder and want to create a specific file because it fits my current workflow. I don't always do it, but sometimes I need to.
>Copy as regularly (Cmd-C), and use Option-Cmd-V to move the file where you want to.
I don't care, why is it not Cmd-X? Why do they break the universal standard with this?
>I don't care, why is it not Cmd-X? Why do they break the universal standard with this?
Because there's no "universal standard". There's mac (which did UI/folders/etc before Windows), Windows, and there's X and modern Linux desktops which came late to the game and (especially traditional X) didn't have any consistent way to do this (or even oferred it).
It's not that Windows Explorer is much better, though. I hate how it prefers to display everything as icons instead of details. How it hides files and directories, doesn't show extensions, etc. But there's one thing it gets right: it shows you where you are, and you can edit that to go anywhere.
Finder can do that too, but it doesn't show you it can do that. You have to know. I recently got a Macbook from work, partially because a Mac-fan coworker had been bugging me to switch from Windows to Mac. At some point I was showing something and typed a path straight into Finder, which blew his mind! He'd been using Macs for ages, and he just wasn't aware that Finder could do that. He learned something useful and new, but it's also quite telling that even some experienced Mac users aren't aware of the existence of such a vital feature.
>How it hides files and directories, doesn't show extensions, etc.
Finder does that too. I didn't list it because it can be configured, which is IMO a sensible default for standard users.
>But there's one thing it gets right: it shows you where you are, and you can edit that to go anywhere.
YES! Finder allows to display a breadcrumb at the bottom, but the simplest way to go anywhere is Cmd+Shift+G. It sucks as a shortcut, and even then it's inferior to Explorer.
I haven't used this yet, but I do remember it as a really cool feature of my previous macbook.
But dragging a file doesn't seem to be so easy anymore; half the time, it wants to rename the file instead. No idea why. I also thought it used to be possible to drag a pdf or other document that I have open in an app, to an email and attach it that way. That doesn't seem to work anymore.
@coldtea already pointed out some tips, but some others to note:
> - There's no (?) way to keep everything consistently sorted and aligned
Press CMD-J to open up the visual option, you can auto group and sort, snap to grid (unsorted), choose a default view.
> - No "parent folder"...
You can either press CMD-UpArrow or just right click on the title bar to see all the folders above it.
> It has less cool features (no tabs for instance) but is so much better to actually use.
Windows Explorer is also missing column view, which is a much faster way to navigate the file system completely with the keyboard. I'm often frustrated in Windows Explorer just trying to move around directories.
This is one of the features I never miss and don't use on any other DE (like KDE). I just open the app, create the file and save. Maybe it's just habit, but I personally doesn't find it as a needed feature.
> There's no easy way to cut a file/folder (Cmd-x doesn't work)
Just drag it where you want while pressing CMD? I know it's not cut but it prevents a lot of errors I think.
> There's no (?) way to keep everything consistently sorted and aligned
It's called "Clean Up By". Available in right click menu and in the top menu probably. It'll always keep the order you choose.
> Tags are useless and just take up space for nothing.
On the contrary, this is something I love. I can just throw a bunch of files to a folder and tag them about what I'm going to do with them. Colors allow me to mentally sort them with no overhead.
> No "parent folder"...
Two-finger click to folder name on the finder. The path will be revealed as a reverse-ordered stack. Or just press back. It's parent folder 99% of the time.
"Clean up by" is still a manual thing you have to do regularly? My downloads folder looks like a mess because files constantly get added/deleted from it via the Dock.
No, that's "Clean Up", which just aligns & tidies stuff a little. "Clean Up By" is automatic.
I generally disable "Clean Up By" because I love to visually group my folders for some types of folders. e.g.: Assets there, source files here, readme and docs to that corner, etc.
However, sometimes an orderly folder is required and I enable Clean Up By date for example. That folder is always sorted by date.
> This is one of the features I never miss and don't use on any other DE (like KDE). I just open the app, create the file and save. Maybe it's just habit, but I personally doesn't find it as a needed feature.
To give perspective, I do weekly. I work often files that I need to modify or create files that have no native apps with UI. Key files, certs, etc.
Also, its way easier when working to just create file in already open dir than go open a program and try to navigate to the dir you already are. Eg local web development, I'm 10 dir deep somewhere obscure place.
> Just drag it where you want while pressing CMD? I know it's not cut but it prevents a lot of errors I think.
That requires you to have both places visible on the screen at the same time. It's also a mouse+keyboard interaction, the least usbale kind of interaction.
> That requires you to have both places visible on the screen at the same time.
You can drag a file across tabs, folders, dive in folders in finder, drag it across desktops and more.
> It's also a mouse+keyboard interaction, the least usbale kind of interaction.
I don't know you, but my left hand is on the keyboard all the time, and my thumb is on the command almost 99% percent of the time. It's just an instinct-like action for me.
No it doesn’t, Mac has spring loading for exactly this reason. This is a feature which has existed on Mac since before I OS X. Learn the system properly before assuming it is crap or simply ask.
I've seen people mention it on the internets for the past few years. I've never had this button on any MacOS version. Currently on Catalina: https://imgur.com/a/D9Kbob1
Sorry, I misread your comment and didn't see the link. I thought you've said that the options just don't exist.
When I checked on my El Capitan Mac (an Early 2008, non unibody MacBook Pro), opening my home folder in icon view and opening view options shows almost the exact screenshot I've shared on my previous comment, including "use as default button".
Moreover, any view except tri-column view produces a view options menu with "use as defaults" button. It has to be a real folder. All My Files is a view and is subject to different treatment. It may be the same with tri-column view because parent-sibling is blurred with multi-level view.
OMG :facepalm: I can't even begin to imagine who coded this, and why?!
Basically:
If you open a folder from a "shortcut" from the sidebar, and press Cmd+J, you get the barren options from the screenshot: https://imgur.com/3meteoB. And it doesn't matter if you keep clicking on other folders
Since I always use just a few folders linked from the sidebar, that's what I would always get.
To get to the "actual finder window", you have to select a folder, and press Cmd + Down to "open it". Visually, nothing changes. But the View Options do: https://imgur.com/EJuqWDC
It still doesn't have the "set as default", but, at the very least, it now looks more like your screenshot.
I'm literally at a loss for words.
Edit: more over, if you Cmd+Tab back, and your current folder is a subfolder of an item in the sidebar, the Cmd-J panel resets back to its barren view. Why?!!
I don't even understand how you got to that "barren view". I've never seen that in my life.
Edit: I guess that "barren view" only happens when viewing things as "columns" mode. I just figured out how to make it look like yours. I always use list mode (as I often want to see/sort by date modified time or file type and I want to see file sizes). Columns view seems like a waste of screen real estate.
It has nothing to do with the sidebar. In column view it doesn't know what folder you're viewing so there's no display settings it can set because that's a per-folder option.
Edit2: I see your "less barren" options now, but it's still missing several options. And you don't need to do "Cmd+down", you can just double click a folder. This presumably forces it into understanding you're talking about a specific folder so it can display additional options.
Also it doesn't even appear to work, those extra options showing up is apparently a bug as none of the options change anything.
That's right. Regarding your last point about two-finger clicking on the folder name to show the path, you can also go to "View > Show Path Bar".
That will show the full path along the bottom, and you can move to any parent folder by double-clicking on it--which is, perhaps, not exactly intuitive :-).
> Just drag it where you want while pressing CMD? I know it's not cut but it prevents a lot of errors I think.
Try making this trick work when your destination is three levels deep into a different hierarchy. Oh yes, you should have thought about it beforehand and opened two windows and pre-arranged them in a way so you can drag from one to another, because it's so intuitive! And yes, the metaphor of "take from one place, drop into other", which worked with documents, is completely broken, but somehow we pretend it still exists. And the worst thing - there's no reason for it to be this broken. It just is.
> It's called "Clean Up By". Available in right click menu and in the top menu probably.
I just checked, it's always greyed out on my finder. Who knows why, it's probably intuitive.
> Or just press back. It's parent folder 99% of the time.
Except no, it's the folder which you saw before that, which doesn't have to be parent at all.
> Try making this trick work when your destination is three levels deep into a different hierarchy. Oh yes, you should have thought about it beforehand and opened two windows and pre-arranged them in a way so you can drag from one to another, because it's so intuitive!
I regularly do this to be honest. I drag the file to my home or Dropbox folder and dive from there. I also regularly drag and drop files from finder to any other application, not just three folders, but three desktops away. It might not be OK or comfortable for you (which I understand), but writing with laser-cut assumptions and prejudice doesn't help.
> I just checked, it's always greyed out on my finder. Who knows why, it's probably intuitive.
If you're in list view, you can always click column headers, just like a particular Redmond OS allows to do. Also there's a sort by menu, which is operational in all views as I just checked. I think again a particular Redmond OS also calls this strange and magical ordering process the same.
macOS works differently, and it goes against some conventions on other OSes, I know. However, I don't get agitated by this, because how it's evolved and it's consistent in its own world. I actually like how it doesn't imitate anything else. It's same for Linux. Again backwards in some parts, but consistent in its universe of things.
The funny thing is, I booted my Windows disk this weekend for steam stuff and for keeping the OS up to date, and a lot of things felt backwards. However, this is again consistent in Windows universe and it's OK.
Again, I want to reiterate that, there's no one-and-only-one correct way to do things. We need to embrace this differences. This is what moves UI/UX research forward. I personally don't whine. Just adapt and love how quirky a UI is. If it's that broken, I patch it, or just submit bug reports.
From you repeated mentions of "Windows" I assume you somehow have the idea there's only two ways things could be - like they are in Windows and like they are on macOS. I haven't used Windows since.... oh my, I dunno, since XP was new and fresh? Maybe a bit later but not for a decade by now. But I've certainly have some habits from using various systems - including Windows. Which hasn't been very intuitive - nobody can say that the system where you click on "Start" to shut it down is intuitive - but at least they wouldn't be so arrogantly smug about being what they are not.
> I assume you somehow have the idea there's only two ways things could be...
No, I mentioned old UNIXen, Linux, and other OSes on my other comments. I do not bring them to table since Linux and other UNIXen Desktop Environments are much more flexible and can be customized to much greater extent, so if something feels wrong, it can be modified easily.
I put Windows vs. macOS because they're arguably the most popular consumer OSes on the market right now. Personally I don't use Windows unless I want to play some games (which happens twice a year at most) or need to manage my parents' computers.
I probably came accross as a macOS fanboy, but I'm actually not (honestly sorry about that). I just like the philosophy behind it and how fast and efficiently can work on that. I can work as efficiently on Linux too (and it's my primary OS on my workstations for ~20 years or so).
The thing I don't agree is labeling of any system of being incapable of something while it's certainly capable but this capability is built with a different design/philosophy and works somewhat differently. If these comments were about Windows, I'd be defending it and its heritage. If it was about Linux, I would certainly do the same with the same enthusiasm.
At the end of the day, it's not fanboyism about and OS, but a rather sympathy for the machine. Understanding how its innards work with as a result of different thinking and how one needs to be flexible and needs to look a little differently to the matter at hand, which is a very useful trait to have.
This is always the argument used by fanboys, "you're used to Windows crappy way". For them there's no way macOS can actually be suboptimal in its own ways, even without comparing it to something else.
I love Apple products and to be honest I generally like macOS too but these responses are ridiculous.
Can't make any excuses for Finder. I always reccomend Forklift for more advanced users. Dual-pane, midnight commander shortcuts, multi-rename, SFTP/S3 support, etc. https://binarynights.com
For the last 2 years I've used a Mac professionally and personally. I switched from Windows because lots of things are better. Finder is not one of them. And your answers should give you a hint why it sucks.
An empty file is a file that is empty, with the name and extension I chose on the moment I need it.
>And yes you can cut. Cmd-C, Cmd-Opt-V.
With the wrong keyboard shortcut, the correct one universally being Cmd-X.
>And yes, there's a way to go the parent folder. SEVERAL:
>
>- Go -> Enclosing Folder
>
>- Cmd-Up
>
>- Right click on the window title and choose any enclosing folder from the tree
>
>- Show the Path Bar and double click any enclosing folder from the tree
Several ways, none being the correct one. Nice. I know Apple likes hard to discover shortcuts but this is ridiculous.
> With the wrong keyboard shortcut, the correct one universally being Cmd-X.
I think there's no right or wrongs in keyboard shortcuts, but there are traditions. Both Windows and macOS has their distinct histories and traditions with inspirations from each other. I think it's equally wrong to point a finger to a Windows machine and shout "Why you don't have a command key, you inferior OS-Wannabe?"
Some machines work different from each other. Sun and other Unixen had super, hyper and meta layers on their keyboards with hundreds or more shortcuts. They weren't wrong either, just different, and IMHO cool.
> Several ways, none being the correct one...
Again, if we're going to throw stones, I can name a lot of shortcomings in Windows from file names to other small/backward stuff, but it'd be equally wrong. They are just different systems and have different choices.
> I know Apple likes hard to discover shortcuts but this is ridiculous.
Just open the help menu of an app and write to command you want to find. It'll show it on the menu. Pressing enter will directly run that action.
>I think it's equally wrong to point a finger to a Windows machine and shout "Why you don't have a command key"
Well actually I think the control/option/command paradigm makes more sense than ctrl/alt/super, so yeah, I'd love this being copied by Microsoft. It's harder than just supporting Cmd-X in the Finder though. Adding Cmd-X to Finder is just a net gain, it doesn't even require deprecating or breaking anything. It just brings a standard to an app that should support it.
> With the wrong keyboard shortcut, the correct one universally being Cmd-X.
I think no matter what you do here, you have a problem. When you press ctrl-x on a file in Windows explorer; you're not really cutting it; nothing happens til you paste! (Unlike using cut anywhere else).
Both Windows and MacOS end up with a bit of a strained metaphor here; I don't think it's at all obvious which way is _correct_.
But, again, this isn't really cut and paste at all. It's more like "note position, and _then_ atomically cut and paste". Cutting and pasting files in Windows doesn't work at all like cutting and pasting anything else.
Someone who had never used Windows might reasonably expect, on finding 'cutting' a file did something, that if they never pasted the file would just be deleted, because that's how cut and past normally works.
That's not true at all! The moment you cut a file on windows it is marked as hidden, which makes it disappear with default settings. It's treu that unless you paste it it will remain there in practice, but the UX gets it right.
Furthermore, you can cut once and paste to several places, with predictable semantics identical to every other implementation of cut+paste (though performance of the first paste will be different from subsequent ones).
Edit: I was entirely wrong about the second part, which does undermine my point considerably.
Generally speaking, macOS uses option or shift to modify existing commands. Hence cmd-c / cmd-(opt)-v.
The paradigm is Copy -> Move or Duplicate.
In Windows, it's Copy or Cut -> Paste. I don't mind this change from Windows. Actually, I slightly prefer the Mac version, because I can change my mind on what operation I want to do. Windows front loads the choice, and I have to do it again if I decide I don't want to copy or cut anymore.
As for folder nav/manipulation, I find Finder to make much greater sense, whereas Explorer was just, this makes sense because it's always been this way (don't get me wrong, Finder has its shortcomings in other areas, although File Preview [space bar] is pretty awesome).
Finder: Generally speaking, arrows do everything.
* Movement within folder: up/down arrow keys
* Move out or into a directory / into a file or app AKA open it: cmd up/down
> In Windows, it's Copy or Cut -> Paste. I don't mind this change from Windows. Actually, I slightly prefer the Mac version, because I can change my mind on what operation I want to do. Windows front loads the choice, and I have to do it again if I decide I don't want to copy or cut anymore.
That's not just Windows, it is the way the copy/paste model works absolutely everywhere outside Mac's Finder. And there is a clear reason why it makes sense, and why the Finder way is just bad UX: the decision about what happens in location X should always be done when you are in location X.
So, if you navigate into a folder and select a file that you want somewhere else, you are currently in the best position to decide whether you want the file to stay here as well (copy) or no (cut). Then, you can go somewhere else and just add the file in that location (paste). Furthermore, on Windows you can paste the file to several places, with predictable semantics: the file will be copied to each of those places (though performance of this operation may be suprising).
I can't even begin to imagine on Mac if you copy a file the Cmd+opt+v it to multiple places. Does it move it around, deleting it from the previous place where you pressed cmd-opt-v???
Edit: I was entirely wrong about the part about copying to multiple places, which does undermine my point considerably.
> That's not just Windows, it is the way the copy/paste model works absolutely everywhere outside Mac's Finder. And there is a clear reason why it makes sense, and why the Finder way is just bad UX: the decision about what happens in location X should always be done when you are in location X.
Hmm, the first part isn't convincing. To me that sounds like "everyone else is doing it" and not much different than arguing between left side vs right side driving, when there could be a third way, like teleportation. Not saying Finder is quite that much of a shift, but Finder's method does have semantical differences, and not just "hey we're cmd+n/m for cut/copy".
As for the second part, I think that's an intriguing argument, but "bad UX" seems like a stretch. If it were truly always decided in location X, would you have to return to location X to cancel your copy/cut? No, because that would be far too strict. It also depends on what your mental model is of what has been decided at location X.
On macOS: I have decided I want to manipulate the data in this file at location X. I can decide to copy or move it later at location Y.
On Windows: I have decided I want to cut XOR copy this file at location X. I can decide location Y later.
I personally like the ability to chain my decisions after. Based on your edit, I guess you've already discovered, but yes on macOS, you can issue a copy command once, then duplicate it and/or move it as many times as you want, to multiple places, even if you choose a move command first. Only location X's copy is altered if doing a move.
I'm not even sure if that would be possible on Windows without going back and forth between location X and Y to switch between copy and cut (my wintel machine is down at the moment).
> There's no easy way to cut a file/folder (Cmd-x doesn't work)
You don't need cut for files, you either want to duplicate the file or move it. For moving you copy it (cmd-c) and then move with cmd-opt-v.
Cut doesn't really make sense for files. With text you cut out the text into a clipboard. Where does the file go when you cut it? Nowhere. There is no place where you can see that you had already cut a file but it's waiting for you to make a mistake and move it somewhere by accident.
Mac has a better duplicate/move UX paradigm and more appropriate for files & folders.
Even with a right click after copying a file, there's no "Move" option. Your explanation makes sense but doesn't really seem supported with Finder's UX since the "Move" terminology doesn't exist anywhere
Usually the option key uncovers more available options in context menus.
> How does one discover Cmd-Opt-V?
Keyboard shortcuts are not usually meant to be "discovered" (how do you discover ctrl+x?). You can learn and memorize them. Although, there is a common theme with the option/alt modifier on the mac.
They are indeed meant to be discovered -- they are usually listed on menu items. You can hold down modifier keys like Option, Command, Ctrl and Shift to see how the menu item's text actually changes to reflect the action that will be taken if you press the respective key command. Very discoverable. I've never seen any other OS that does this (not that I look for it specifically). Also note when ellipses at the end of a menu item disappears when you are holding Option or whatever -- this means the action will be taken immediately, instead of asking the user to confirm (quick example is on "Empty Trash" in the Finder menu).
> Keyboard shortcuts are not usually meant to be "discovered" (how do you discover ctrl+x?).
Of course they are, don't be silly. Even in Finder, the "Édition" menu (I don't know how it's called in english) lists the keyboard shortcuts next to their names (copy, paste...). When you don't select anything, it even shows "Cut (Cmd+X)" grayed out! It just disappears when yous elect a file/folder
It does make it less intuitive if it is hiding common interactions behind keyboard shortcuts (cmd+up instead of an Up button) or if it is inconsistent with common paradigms (different shortcuts for copy vs cut + single shortcut to paste is universal outside finder, which uses an entirely different paradigm).
It's not hidden at all - it's actually a very easily-discoverable menu item under the "Go" menu.
In regards to consistency, though I know this isn't exactly what you meant, I just booted a virtual machine with System 6 (released in 1988) and Command-Up was the same key command to open the parent folder. :)
Actually some companies do. You want Linux since the software you are writing typically leverages a Linux environment, but the company doesn't want to support Linux so gives you a Mac machine instead. Its a poor substitute for the real thing IMO on a number of fronts at least for me. While it still works some of the time I would prefer a different environment and enjoy things like better Docker performance, avoid compile time differences between ARM and x64, odd differences in Terminal command behavior, etc, etc.
FYI you can do cut in Mac. Do Cmd-C to copy and the Cmd-Option-V to cut-paste. For whatever reason, Windows has cut attached to selecting the file, but Mac has it attached to pasting the file.
To me attaching it to source file actually makes sense. In either scenario paste results in the same thing at the destination, it is only the behaviour of the source that changes.
(Sure, under the hood nothing different happens at the beginning, but semantically I think Windows makes sense here)
wow I did not realize mac had that. As an original mac user cutting a file always seemed like a terrible idea when I saw the option on windows. What if you cut it but then then get interrupted before pasting? File gone! The mac way seems safer.
- There's no way to create an empty file
Fair
- There's no easy way to cut a file/folder (Cmd-x doesn't work)
If the intent is to paste/move then hold option cmd v(or in the context menu hold option) if you just want to cut it to remove it then that is a delete. Not necessarily better or worse imo just different
- There's no (?) way to keep everything consistently sorted and aligned
Need more info here, but I dont notice a problem with sorting by name type modified or any other column header just like windows explorer?
>> There's no easy way to cut a file/folder (Cmd-x doesn't work
Cmd-opt-V will move the previously copied folder/file. I find this behavior superior to having to decide whether to cut/copy a file to select it. Instead, you choose the operation when it is time to actually move or copy. You can also copy a file to multiple locations in combination with a move.
Cmd-up moves to the parent folder.
You have lots of sort and aligning options that are accessible in keyboard shortcuts. Column browser doesn’t have a good windows equivalent for example. Alt or double clicking the bottom bar adjusts the width of all panes or auto adjusts the selected one. So I’m never in a situation where some file name is cut off even in very deep hierarchies.
There are certainly issues with finder, but your complaints really just highlight that you are more experienced with the windows and not accustomed to Mac.
One of the problems addressing some of the issues you raised Is that you are not really explaining what you want to do. All you do is complain why Mac doesn’t work exactly like windows. Instead you should figure out what you want to do and explore and learn how that is accomplished on a Mac.
If I'm not accustomed to macOS after using it exclusively for more than 2 years, that shows where it sucks. There's plenty of things that I love on macOS: Spotlight, three-finger moves, even the weird fullscreen mode because it works so well with the pad. But the finder just sucks. That's it. It's not the end of the world and doesn't make macOS crappy. It's just a bad app.
Depends on what you mean by easy. There's 2 (two) things you need to do to make this easier:
1. Enable New Terminal Tab at Folder service in Finder (goto Finder/Services/Services Preferences.../Files and Folders).
2. Make sure the Path Bar is visible in Finder (it's on the View Menu)
Now right-click the path in the Path Bar where you want to create the folder, select and click the New Terminal Tab at Folder and then touch whatever empty file you want created. Close the terminal window/tab.
Done!
I rarely need to create a new, empty file - but when I do this is how I do it!
I use a nice little app called New File Menu to do that. It supports a bunch of defaults & whatever other templates you want to create. $2 on the Mac App Store. I’m just a happy user.
I moved to mac during Vista, switched back for 7, and then bailed after Windows 8. I'm still running 7 on my gaming/video editing machine.
Microsoft needs to stop fucking with working UIs. Metro (or whatever they call it now) is a worthless eyesore full of ads and distracting rotating, flipping, bouncing UI elements. Get out of my face and let me do my work.
>Why is it that when I click Finder, nothing actually opens? I have to hit Option+N to actually display a Finder window.
Clicking Finder will open a new Finder window if none was created thus far, or bring up a minimized window.
>Don't even get me started on the sort options. What kind of file manager applies a Sort view to every single directory, instead of the one you actually set the Sort view to?
Not sure what you mean. If I click to select a sort view, it's applied to the directory I'm looking at.
I should have written it more clearly. It applies the sort view globally to all folders. What I want is the sort applied only to the folder I'm currently in.
You can use the global sort view settings, or you can right click, and chose Sort to override in the folder you're in. Or in table view, you can click the column bar and sort accordingly.
> Why is it that when I click Finder, nothing actually opens?
This would be an example of the 10% of the UI which isn't identical.
One of the fundamental differences between macOS and Windows is the menu bar. There's only one at a time, and it belongs to the program which has the focus. A corollary of this is that you don't need a window to have a program.
It's not just Finder, most macOS programs are perfectly happy having no window open.
I've been on OS X since 2003, and it took me a second to figure out what you were talking about here, because if I don't see the window I expect to see, my eyes immediately flick to the upper-left corner. If I see what I expect to see, I've probably already typed Cmd-N or Cmd-O, depending.
There's a lot to complain about with Finder; my personal peeve is that I want two-finger-swipe-right to go back one directory, like the back button in browsers. But this particular behavior is just macOS working the way that it does. If you close all open windows in Preview and quit, then start it again, it will do the same thing.
Right, so it's not a problem with Finder but actually the window manager. Why would you ever want to have a "menubar-only" app? It would be better if the design didn't create the possibility of that happening at all.
If I have some document editor open, and I close all the documents, what should happen?
Should it quit? Well if I wanted to quit, I would have done so.
Should it display some blank pane? Why? To let me know it's still running? The menu bar does that!
I say it should close that last window, and then I can open up another one and keep working.
In other words, I want to have a "menubar-only" app every time I'm done with all the windows I had open, and intend to open more. This happens frequently enough that I'm glad macOS works the way it does.
When you are done with all the windows in your editor, do you open a new window by choosing File > New? You don't open a new window by clicking the dock icon?
If you close all the tabs in a browser window, should it close the window or display a new tab page? Or just do nothing but show an empty tab bar and a blank window pane? That seems like the worst possible solution, because it always requires more clicks to do whatever you were intending to do. At least closing the window or opening a new tab will save you some clicks 50% of the time.
I hit Cmd-O or Cmd-N, depending on what I'm doing. Personally I barely use the dock for anything, Cmd-Space for Spotlight is faster, and I use Cmd-Tab to navigate between open programs.
If I close all the tabs in a browser window, the window should disappear, yes. If I close all the windows, the browser should stay open, so I can start another window if I want to.
That's the whole point of this user affordance, there's a difference between closing the last window and closing the browser! If I want to close a whole window at once, that's Shift-Cmd-W, Cmd-W closes just one tab, and this works for any tabbed window on any native Mac app.
No amount of Cmd-W will quit the application, and Cmd-Q will always quit the application, maybe prompting and maybe not. They're unrelated commands, especially since most applications will save your windows and that's most often what I want to have happen.
Should whether an application is running or not be a concern to you? Why would you ever want to actually quit an application?
Granted, I understand that in reality the app might be misbehaving, hogging resources and whatnot and that the underlying OS isn't perfect and we should absolutely have control over how our hardware is utilized, but from a UX PoV I think the notion of a running process isn't of interest to me unless I am developing software.
If I close a window, I just want to get it out of my way. I only leave things running as a workaround to the possible slow cold start the program may present.
There's nothing at all wrong with the behavior, and it's perfectly logical once you understand what is going on, but it's certainly not intuitive. It's a bit of an odd mental model that's (as far as I can tell) specific to OSX.
I find OSX to be generally pretty logical and easy to understand, but certainly no more _intuitive_ than something like Windows. Another way of saying this: if I took someone who didn't know how to use a desktop OS, I wouldn't be any more confident sitting them down in front of a Mac.
I don't think desktop GUIs can or should be 'intuitive'.
They should be consistent, discoverable, and customizable.
I give macOS full marks for consistency, and a passing grade for customizable, but it's hardly discoverable! I read these kinds of HN posts because of all the little tips and tricks I find.
Operating systems used to come with a thick manual, and you could buy an even thicker "missing manual" book at the local bookstore. macOS could use one of those.
I think he quoted intuitive because that's an effectively meaningless claim. To someone who spent two decades in Windows, everything Windows-like will be "intuitive". That doesn't make it a universal truth.
The concepts in Windows used to translate to the physical world. "Buttons" and "Menus." Sure, to an alien species, these things are unintuitive, but no more so than a door knob.
Of course, physical things are losing buttons. I guess kids will refer to things as 'tap the tappy spot' or some such.
I actually find MacOS applications far more discoverable than equivalent windows or Unix tools. That's precisely thanks to the consistent menu structure, which always includes a help menu with a search option, including both the help files as well as the menu itself. Having help show you where to find a particular option so you can learn it for next time is precisely what I want.
It's better than nothing, and yeah, probably better than the competition as well.
But then there are core features like "a file icon on a document window can be dragged exactly like a file icon in the finder" that you can use macOS for years and never find. That's before they started hiding the file icons in Big Sur!
Or, that you can Cmd+click on the document icon or name in any titlebar to pull up a menu of its containing directories. This one is _super_ handy and has zero discoverability.
It still works in Big Sur! Just hover over the window title and the icon (called the "document proxy icon") will appear.
I think it's fine that they hid it, since even before, the things you can do with it (dragging, cmd/ctrl-clicking) were already hidden.
The only old functionality that is lost with Big Sur is that you could glance at the icon to see if there are unsaved changes (if so, the icon would be dimmed). But you can still tell by looking for the dot in the red close button.
it doesn't really depend on the application. every MacOS application has a menu in the same style, and with the menu & help file spotlight search that I described. I find almost no Windows app has something equivalent (as in a menu search), plus they have a multitude of differently shaped menus with various guidelines for how to structure them.
I don't find key bindings in MacOS consistent. The first thing I started missing from Windows is the F2 button for renaming things. I can do that everywhere in Windows. In Mac there's no keyboard shortcut for it, so probably I could add it in Finder, but it probably won't work in other file dialogs (or maybe yes).
Thanks, in Windows that starts the program, but I guess there's another key for that...I'll have to experiment more. I love my M1 Macbook Pro so much that I want to get used to the OS.
One thing that's killer for me in MacOS vs Windows, regarding consistency, is text fields. They always behave the same (except, of course, for weird apps, say ms office). CMD+Backspace will delete a whole word even in password fields or system settings, etc. This is always hit or miss in Windows. I know it doesn't work for passwords. In Windows explorer it works... sometimes. It works in the address bar, but not in the preferences or when renaming a file.
> There's nothing at all wrong with the behavior, and it's perfectly logical once you understand what is going on, but it's certainly not intuitive.
I find the "app-less desktop" of Windows and all the Linux DE's I've tried (i.e. the big ones) far more weird and infuriating. It's easy to lose context of what app is focused, since a slight dimming of buttons isn't quite as obvious as I'd like. Reading the word of the app in the menu bar, even if it's just through my peripheral vision, makes the focus behavior far more obvious.
And an "app-less desktop" more or less necessitates that you now dedicate an entire meta/super/Windows/whatever key to the window manager, which is just such a waste of keyboard real estate, as well as a driver for key command inconsistency. In macOS, Cmd+N will (nearly) always make a new window for the app that you're in; Cmd+W will close it; Cmd+Q will quit it. In Windows, Cmd+N works for everything, but to make my first file explorer window, I have to hit Windows+E. And to quit an app, it's...Alt+F4, for some reason?
The trickle-down effects of this design are endless -- I've just laid out the basics of the basics here.
> One of the fundamental differences between macOS and Windows is the menu bar. There's only one at a time, and it belongs to the program which has the focus. A corollary of this is that you don't need a window to have a program.
The core difference is that macOS is (originally) document-oriented. You could care less if an app is opened or not, window == document, whereas on Windows, window == program.
Each progressively grew into the direction of the other (e.g Finder progressively losing spatial features and Explorer gaining them, MDI interfaces on macOS vs the win7 taskbar being actually more of a Dock...)
I've been using macOS for more than a decade, and I can't remember a single case of doing anything where macOS being supposedly "document-oriented" helped me in any way that wouldn't work exactly in the same way in a different OS. So I'm not sure of what use is it for me, really?
The single menu bar design breaks down very quickly once you start using a large display. Evolve to multiple large displays and it is an absolute mess. The only option you have is to enable the toolbar on every screen, which starts to be laughable.
I have used Windows setups with as many as 50 screens (command and control center). Having each application exist within its own window with all relevant menus in that window is, by far, a superior approach in these settings.
Even with three large monitors, using a mouse to fly across that screen space to reach a menu is just a pain. Imagine a system consisting of 25 x 4 screens. It would be a nightmare.
Shortcuts? Someone else said MacOS lacks discoverability. It’s true. Tooltips are almost nowhere to be found and lots of applications have no shortcuts. I have watched non-expert users in fear of clicking a button because they have no clue what it does.
The single menu and single mouse button idea worked well on an old Mac with a single 9 in screen. It works fine on laptops. The minute the display grows in size and multiple displays are used the approach breaks down very quickly.
If you own a multi-monitor Mac setup (we have several) and have enabled the menu bar on all screens, you already understand how broken that concept has become. If it was not you would only have one menu bar with your three large screens.
I'm not sure I fully understand the workflow here. I use three large 4k monitors with macOS, and it's straightforward for the most part. Then again, I basically never use the menu bar, since keyboard shortcuts are so consistent across apps. I just keep the dock on the primary display.
The only occasional pain point I encounter is when apps like Zoom automatically switch to "full screen mode".
There's also the option in Mission Control for "When switching to an application, switch to a Space with open windows for the application". If that feature is turned off, then you could, for example, have Chrome on _every_ desktop. Then it's just a matter of Cmd+tab to Chrome, and Cmd+n to open a new window on whichever display/desktop has the current focus.
For window management, I've found BetterSnapTool to be essential. It provides the typical window snapping from Windows. Better yet, you can setup keyboard shortcuts to quickly snap a window to the left side, right side, maximize, or move it to the next monitor. The shortcuts I use mimic Vim bindings, so it's easy to remember [1].
With caps locks remapped to Control in the Keyboard preferences, moving and re-sizing "windows" across multiple displays is fast & easy.
But I'm probably missing something with your particular use-case.
All of our Macs have a utility installed to remap the keyboard to make it match a PC to the extent possible. When you use multiple platforms with some frequency it is a real pain to have to deal with MacOS idiosyncrasies.
What's interesting is that Apple explicitly chose to ignore what I will go-ahead and call the de-facto standard established across pretty much every desktop GUI by a range of vendors. I have worked on Solaris, Irix, IBM OS2, Amiga OS (owned an original machine signed by the development team), Linux, Windows and MacOS. The odd duck is anything Apple made.
No reason for it whatsoever. Proof? Billions of non-engineers around the world do not seem to have any issues whatsoever operating a Windows machine, which inherits from all of the standards I mentioned above.
The gist of the thread was to somehow characterize Macs as easier and intuitive to use. That simply isn't and has not been the case for a very long time. Expert users, engineers, coders cannot be the test subjects for this evaluation. You just said that a tool you use is easy to remember because the shortcuts mimic VIM bindings. That is beyond foreign to average or below-average users like my mother, father, uncle, the local doctor, teacher, restaurant employee, etc.
No issues with the average user running MacOS on a single small screen. The abstraction works well there. The problems start once you expand beyond that.
I was recently involved in a display characterization project where we had somewhere around eight 4K+ displays attached to a PC. We also evaluated Apple's Pro Display XDR connected as the second display on an Apple laptop (I forget which one).
Using the PC (running Windows) to address every display, run calibration tools on each one and run custom characterization code was an absolute breeze. Doing the same with the Apple XDR was an ordeal. And, to make things worse, using the touchpad to navigate across the entire canvas was just horrific.
I do like Macs. I just don't think they live up to the hype. Easy and cool to use for unsophisticated users on a single screen up to a point. The problem with not making users learn anything is that they will always remain naive users.
Imagine if everyone was forced to use a GUI text editor with simple controls and you did not have the option to use VIM. That's the difference. One assumes the user is an idiot. The other considers the idea that users can actually do more than point and click with a single button on a single menu bar.
Not trying to be nasty at all. I just think Apple takes things to an undesirable extreme at times. They carry this through to the iPhone, where you now have such overloading on controls that nobody knows what they do. I lost track, I think we got up to triple-clicking the home button? And no camera shutter button (no, the volume button isn't a good solution, as the many pictures of my left foot can attest).
Anyhow, good technology. I just don't agree with the choices they seem to make again and again.
The Mac had a functioning UI in the 1980s before the “defacto standards” appeared (I believe would be in the 1990s) would that explain some of the discrepancies?
Standards evolve over time. The Mac was not the first GUI and neither was Windows, Solaris, Irix, Amiga, Linux (various) etc. Yet almost everyone in the industry solved the problems by going in approximately the same direction while Apple stubbornly stuck to their convictions.
No problem with that at all. Being opinionated is fine. No issues there.
One way to look at it is that Apple, as a computer company, was a failure. They were on the edge of becoming insolvent. In fact, most Apple users don't know that Microsoft/Bill Gates rescued Apple from meeting an unsightly end by investing $150 million (maybe more, I don't remember) into the company. This would be equivalent to a billion dollar+ investment today.
What saved Apple was the iPhone. Plain and simple. The computer portion of their business was crashing and burning. Note that I am not ascribing this impending doom to the choices made for the GUI at all. Just reviewing some history.
Sometimes being very different is cool, and sometimes it isn't.
Let's look at it from a very different frame of reference. All browsers today work and feel about the same to a casual user --the general public. If someone insisted on delivering one that behaved and looked very different from the standards developed over time, they would not find a great deal of adoption. Microsoft did the right thing in dropping their failed browser and adopting Chromium. That is an example of a good decision made based on how standards evolved outside of their own efforts. Late, sure, but they were opinionated about browsers and eventually understood they were wrong.
That's what Macs felt like to the rest of the world. Weird. Perhaps unnecessarily weird. As the world was getting used to having a capable computer on every desk, Apple, in my opinion, continued to shoot itself in the foot by not listening to a user base 10x to 100x the size of their at all.
You can do that, of course, but when your company ends-up at the edge of failure and you have to be rescued by your competitor...maybe it's time to rethink your approach.
Apple insisted on silly things, like having a single mouse button and, yes, a single menu bar. As I said before, the single menu bar makes sense for some single small screen use-cases, but it quickly falls apart once you go big and multiple screens. There's also the effect of having multiple windows belonging to multiple applications strewn about your screen or screens with no clear association to a single application. I remember the early days of this. It was a mess. The difference between running something like Photoshop on Windows vs. a Mac, was night and day. One was clean and organized. The other was a mess of windows everywhere. What I am using for this use-case evaluation was the reaction of my daughter who had been learning tools such as GIMP and Photoshop on a PC and then saw how Photoshop ran on a Mac. She wanted nothing to do with it.
Anyhow, I am not here to downgrade Apple computers. They are fine. Very usable. Lots of people love them and, in my opinion, pay ridiculous amounts of money for them. All I am saying is that Apple could have made an effort to still be opinionated while giving users the choices they were already making elsewhere. That's an important point. The PC world has been an amazing experiment from day one. For the most part choices were made by users. There have been massive failures in that universe. Users voted with their purchases every step of the way. And that's how we got where we are. Were it not for Microsoft/Bill Gates and, later, the iPhone, it is quite possible the Mac would have died long ago. This was a technology imposed on users from above. I think I can say it is very rare to see that kind of thing survive in the long term. I still remember when Apple decided to move away from the PowerPC platform and killed off every customer's investment in software. In the PC world, like it or not, the issue of compatibility across tr...
Also it is one of the main reason "focus follow mouse" feature couldn't be implemented in Mac OS. I use multi-monitor setup and I used Ubuntu for my personal computer before Covid, but now started using my office Mac for everything and I hate that Mac doesn't have this option.
I typed in wrong window more times than I would like to admit because of this stupid singe menu bar design.
In one way, 'focus' already follows mouse in macOS. I can mouse over to a window and start scrolling, so mouse focus follows the mouse.
And we don't want "OS focus" to follow the mouse! That would pop windows to the front, change the menu bar, and other unfortunate consequences: if I were mousing up toward the menu and accidentally crossed another window, I'd get the wrong menu.
What we want is for keyboard focus to also follow the mouse, and there's not actually any inherent reason why this can't happen. It's just that they're tightly coupled by the implementation, to the point where an extension can't un-couple them.
The lack of (keyboard) focus-follows-mouse is the big fly in my macOS ointment, it annoys me whenever I'm on my widescreen, which is at least half of the time. I do think it would be possible to implement a usable f-f-m which still worked the way macOS does with respect to menus, which windows get priority, and so on.
It would require uncoupling some things under the hood, which would probably affect the API in an incompatible way, so I don't expect to ever see it happen unfortunately.
"I've probably already typed Cmd-N or Cmd-O, depending."
This is, particularly for a novice or intermediate user IMO quite intimidating. It means there is some learnt behavior + keyboard command required to "see anything" and work with the program. If I'm using my trackpad/mouse trying to work out after I start a program why I can't see anything like I've seen new Mac users do for some time it isn't great. Because there is no window its easy to click anywhere else in my search for my "missing program" and immediately lose the "menu bar" that allows you to (Cmd-N) or discover the ability to do that. It's almost like the app never booted up.
Sure you can learn behavior and work around it as I and you have had to do, but if the menu bar behavior changes per window focus anyway I don't see the difference than Windows with menu bar on the window other than "its the Mac way".
It's not necessary to hit either of those though. I don't think I have any weird configuration for window management, but if I close all the windows of an application, clicking the dock icon for it opens a new window. So from the perspective of the user it's no different than if the application had truly exited. I think that's why the default settings for the dock don't even indicate what's running.
(I don't think it's a good thing to keep applications running when the last window is closed, but that's a different argument)
When I click the Finder icon in my dock, or open it with Alfred, I get a new Finder window. Doesn't appear to be a configurable setting. Not sure what's wrong with your setup.
When I click the finder icon, I get a finder window.
As to ease of use...
MacOS is not easier to learn - it has just as many quirks as windows, except in different places.
However, I have found it much more consistent than any other desktop. The menubar is one example - always there in the same place, with all the File, Edit, etc menus as expected. Keys are consistent (mostly)
I mean, you're biased by an entire lifetime of using Windows. So you'll likely find whatever you're used to "easier to use" - using a GUI vs a CLI, typing in QWERTY, being righthanded, speaking English, driving on the righthand side of the road, and so on.
> Maybe this sentiment is a holdover from an earlier era
It's a holdover from two different earlier eras.
First, you have everything up to about 1998, which covers MacOS Classic through Mac OS 8, and Windows up through Win98. At the beginning of this period, when "PC" meant MS-DOS, the usability difference was obviously stark. But even in GUI era of PCs, System 7 compared favorably with Windows 3.1, and Mac OS 8 compared favorably with Windows 95.
Then Windows 98 and Mac OS 9 came out, and I'd say that things at least evened up. All else being equal, OS 9's GUI was still simpler and more intuitive, to my taste, but all else was not equal. Windows 9x had memory protection and pre-emptive multitasking, and Mac OS Classic didn't, and there were issues with system extensions and stability in Mac OS that I personally felt were more troublesome than Windows's famous BSOD problem during that era. This opinion could be a product of my experience working tech support at the time. BSOD was usually fixed by cursing profusely while rebooting. System extension conflicts were fixed at great physical and emotional cost to the person doing the fixing.
So I'd say Windows was generally easier to use than Macs for a while, until OS X eventually came into its own. It's harder to place a start time on this, but let's say 2002ish, with the release of Jaguar. And then there's been a sort of long slow decline as they clutter up the GUI, while at the same time Microsoft was putting serious work into cleaning things up. I'm not sure if the switch happened during the Windows 7 era or the Windows 10 era, but yeah, I'd definitely say I find Windows easier to use nowadays.
Personally, the main thing keeping me on Macs nowadays is frankly just the touchpad, to which I seem to be addicted.
> From a UI perspective, it's 90% identical to windows.
That's convergent evolution. The UIs started off very different. MacOS's current set of UI abstractions was mostly enshrined in an era when its competitor was Windows 3.1.
> Why is it that when I click Finder, nothing actually opens?
I was going to give a few justifications for this, but I just tested it, and clicking on the Finder icon in the Dock does open a new Finder window for me. (In Big Sur. This definitely wasn't always the case; I'm not certain when it changed.)
But those justifications, for the long period where it didn't, are still kind of interesting/relevant:
1. the Desktop is a Finder window. IIRC, on some versions of macOS, using a switcher to focus the Finder would — if you don't have any open Finder windows — focus the desktop (insofar as keyboard navigation goes.)
2. You can do useful things with the Finder without any windows open. IIRC, Apple's HIG only recommends creating a new window in response to a click on the app's icon (and or having a Cmd-0 accelerator), if the app is useless without having a window open. But the Finder has a bunch of menu-items in the "Go" menu (with keyboard accelerators) to open windows showing specific locations, or to open dialogs for connecting to networks, etc. It'd be annoying if you wanted to open one of these, but focusing the Finder always opened a default window you had to get rid of first. I personally often focus the Finder and then press Cmd+K to mount an SMB share on my NAS, then immediately close the resulting window, because the point was to get it mounted for command-line use.
> I bought a Mac in 2014 after a lifetime of using Windows. I never understood why people called it easier to use than Windows. Maybe this sentiment is a holdover from an earlier era when people would mindlessly run executables and zip files attached in emails and AIM messages.
IMHO, it's mainly holdover from when Windows was DOS. For a very long time using a Mac was kind of like a religion (they even had explicit evangelists), and many people who used Macs were irrationally attached to the platform. One of the main tenets of the faith was that Macs were much easier to use than PCs (because GUI and no autoexec.bat and IRQ assignment, etc). I think that meme has gotten stuck in popular consciousness, even though Windows has had literally 30+ years to catch up. Also, especially since the OS X era, I think the usability of Macs has stagnated or even regressed in many ways.
Ça 2008, one of my first times using MacOS, I had to move thousands of photos using a friends macbook. After hours of moving files from SD cards to a en external harddisk I learned that Mac standard behavior is not 'merge folders with the same name into one another' as on any other OS, but rather to replace folders with the same name completely.
Whoever sets the standard behavior of such an important operation as destructive seriously knows nothing about UI.
The Mac finder always drives me nuts for the same reason.
Both the finder and explorer are tedious to use.
I drag the explorer to the task bar and open it by right clicking File Explorer.
Both seem to prefer creating new folders to creating new views of the file system.
The entire thing used to be super intuitive and consistent.
Disk images were the mac equivalent of a compressed folder, e.g. zip. And I find the "compressedd virtual usb-stick" idea a lot more intuitive than the whole "we cram files into other files and loose all metadata" shenanigans.
Apps used to be simple files in the finest unix tradition.
No weird installer that does who knows what, no wizards, no special system files, no uninstaller.
Want to take your app from one computer to another? Just send the file.
App stores, installer, and the whole sandboxing gunk, is a million times more complex and unintuitive.
The author seems to be oblivious to the simplicity of the old ways, and thus suspects some hidden magic going on in loading the disk image.
Loading the disk image doesn't do "something" and then displays an IKEA esque installer window.
The window is literally a finder window with hidden borders.
The idea was: "If a user can drag and drop files, they can install apps."
The workflow described is composed of several orthogonal concepts that each on their own are super intuitive, or at least were, when unix philosophy, file system usage and user empowerment were still at the core of Mac Os values.
Deleting an app folder on MacOS is no less intuitive than right-clicking an app in windows and choosing Uninstall.
Certainly in most OSs (I think), there is a good chance that more got installed than just a single folder so anyone who isn't exclusively on a Mac is going to think that deleting a folder is asking for trouble.
>Deleting an app folder on MacOS is no less intuitive than right-clicking an app in windows and choosing Uninstall.
Here's a question though: What are you right-clicking in Windows that gives you an uninstall option? Windows is so complicated that most of the time it's not even the app itself. You certainly won't get an Uninstall option right-clicking the executable in Program Files, you have to find a magic shortcut somewhere that is keyed up in the registry with the relevant uninstaller package.
Only on a superficial level. Everything that the app has dumped across the system (e.g. in ~/Application Support) is still in place, after the default "uninstall" of a Mac app that was put in the trash.
Uninstalling on macOS is actually pretty tough, since ancillary files are not cleaned up. I end up installing a set of third party utilities whenever I set up a new Mac that help me with a bunch of the weird stuff that isn't handled by default. (including AppCleaner and ShiftIt for uninstallation and window management, respectively).
Windows makes it pretty easy with the one "add or remove programs" section of the control panel.
Which doesn't clear ancillary files, either. The only platforms that I know of in widespread use which actually clear all ancillary files on uninstall are iOS and Android (except for SD card).
>Windows makes it pretty easy with the one "add or remove programs" section of the control panel.
Except there's no guarantee that uninstallers will remove all ancillary files on Windows either, especially because Windows developers seem to have a habit of just spraying configuration files and serialized state all across the filesystem haphazardly with little concern for organization.
It's not really a Windows-only thing. Even OSes with proper packaging systems (and even MSI on Windows) will still forget a lot of files e.g. in user's home directories. How do you even decide when do you remove those?
That's irrelevant because I create my own rc files, and uninstallers should definitely not delete user-created files. Additionally most software that people install is not Unix tools, and most users have no idea what an rc file is.
Uninstalling on windows wasn't only confusing, it was straight up broken, since applications were leaving random junk everywhere in the filesystem. Bonus points for when that junk prevented subsequent install.
It's unfortunate that the intuitive user interface for a new user is the goal for commercial reasons.
Many people use computers 2-8 hour per day for their whole life. It would be worth of the effort to create secondary consistent UI that takes weeks to learn, even if it would increase productivity just 5%.
But I don't think there are people out there happily burning 5% productivity to compensate for poor UI.
Normally people are burning productivity by not learning/knowing what their existing UI provides.
e.g. In windows windows-key+arrow, lets you snap windows to the side of the screen (or minimize, mazimize, shift monitor etc). Now I've absolutely no idea when this feature was introduced - but plenty of people are still reaching for their pointer device to drag stuff about.
It's a nice feature. You don't forget it - but it's bad UX as I swear usage of it only spreads by word-of-mouth.
No idea if MS invented it - or it was 'borrowed' from another OS.
I don't see any reason OSs cannot be both more intuitive and afford more productivity than they currently do. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell neither is a goal of modern Desktop OSs.
Biggest thing that makes a computer intuitive is being the same interface I've already used. So of course all three major platforms have made breaking changes to their UIs.
Once I got to a certain place in my coding knowledge, I stopped caring so much about the different OSes. Once you see the abstractions you know what layer to look for. Is the thing a UI problem or a network config problem? Normally it's clear once you've coded a bit.
I like my MacBook mainly because of the screen, and a little bit because of the touchpad. Those are both hardware considerations rather than OS.
In terms of using it, I have a terminal on shortcut, which I also do on my backup Linux machine. If I had a Windows as my daily machine I think I'd do the same. In terms of installed apps, all the IDEs are on all platforms, and all chat programs are on all platforms. Just about everything else is in a browser. So it hardly matters too much what you pick.
I don't really care between macOS or various *nix, but I really despise using Windows. The last time I seriously used Windows (granted, probably about seven years ago), I was astonished that the OS still required (or at least strongly urged) me to reboot after I installed anything. Small little shoddy UI quirks on Windows kept me frustrated, e.g. not being able to find anything in the control panel, or especially that a window must have focus for me to scroll (on macOS, scrolling affects whatever is under the mouse cursor regardless of focus). They were all small but added up to a horribly frustrating user experience. When I started seeing ads pop up in my start menu, I decided my Windows days were over and I wiped that machine in favor of Linux Mint.
My favourite unintuitive action comes from Windows 8 (before 8.1). Here I was, with an IT education, unable to figure out how to shut down the computer!
It wasn't in the start menu like in every other Windows version before and after. No, to do that you needed to swipe from the right side of the screen for some sort of a system sidebar to appear (I believe it was called "charms"). I've used the cmd command I was familiar with for months (shutdown -s -t 0) before finally deciding to consult with a search engine, and oh boy, was I pissed when I found out where it was.
Super glad I never have to touch Windows to do my work now.
I have one Windows machine for a game I play. The number of updates it has to install, how long it takes, and the fact it has to take place during shutdown is so obnoxious. How do people put up with this? I could never use Windows as my daily driver due to this alone. Ubuntu quietly updates in the background, and only needs to reboot if the kernel got updated. I think I reboot my main machine after an update on the order of once or twice a year.
My grandparents got iPhones (during COVID) because they were supposed to be easy.
Wow, that's just the marketing.
The jargon was outside their understanding, and unless we were physically looking at the phone, we couldn't guess what word in the Appstore meant Download.
And it got worse, the requests/requirement to login with Apple ID on various occasions were frustrating.
And from a tech geek, I had a work IPhone where I struggled to change settings and found annoyances with bugs.
Apple's posture is that the defaults are good for most people. Their settings management is second class in all of their products compared to Windows and (especially) Linux and Android.
Intuitiveness is a strange topic. Think of moving to the beginning and the end on the command line in the terminal. This is done using Ctrl-A and Ctrl-E keys. Is this intuitive? Yes, it is for someone who was using Emacs for 20 years as it uses same keys. Is this intuitive for a typical MS Windows user who uses Notepad++ and MS Word? Hell, no.
Same with operation systems. For someone accustomed to Windows conventions things like lack of Ctrl-X on Mac for cutting files (so after Ctrl-V they are removed from old location) will be counter-intuitive. For people living in Mac ecosystem this is natural and does not affect their workflow (they are even epic discussions on the topic in the Internet).
Exclude business PC’s and OSX’s market share is surprisingly large. Tablets and smartphones have eaten into the ultra cheap PC sales in a big way which has been shifting the market.
What I like is that the System Settings stayed somewhat the same.
What still hurts is the Finder, there is just something missing, file management is painful.
In the early period of Apple computers, they offered more affordance ("intuitiveness", the user's immediate sense of how to use the tooling) than $competingOS.
This is in part because of the simple WIMP [0] affordance, some humane design choices such as smiling faces and long filenames, and because a few applications were pre-eminent in their categories. Adobe Photoshop, for example. What people did with Apple computers, they knew how to do and what to expect.
The reputation for ease of use persisted for a long time after it became less of a differentiating characteristic. "Reputation" is sometimes perpetuated by marketing, not by a consensus of thoughtful users.
An OS such a ChromeOS can make a claim to "ease of use" by limiting the user's ability to cause damage.
These days and for some time, I use Linux (Debian), Android, ChromeOS, and M-Windows in that order of frequency. Linux gives me all the tools that I want, Android is mobile, ChromeOS is hard-to-break for restricted computing. For M-Windows, the typical driver requirements make it necessary.
Mac's are not intuitive. But then, neither are Windows machines or Ubuntu machines.
I've yet to use an intuitive machine.
The most intuitive thing is the command line ... but you have to learn so much before you can use your machine from the command line ... its not an investment worth making unless you're a developer.
Are you joking? Searching in a windowed app usally brings up a dialog with various search options that can be ticked. Learning options for grep/awk/sed etc. is incredible tedious.
Like most things, there is a difference between intuitive for person A and person B and this is not the same as whether a power user can invest time learning a tool and then become super fast at it. An expert in Grep could probably find something in a file much more quickly than someone in Windows or MacOS but I would argue many people would find windowed apps more intuitive.
The app install process is a bloody joke. I have installed programs my whole life on probably 5 desktop OS:es and I work full time since 20 years with desktop software installers.
Yet I had to Google several times to just install a single piece of MacOS software.
The windows exe installer system isn’t perfect but it beats that…
macOS app installation is broken for about 20 years now. It's not a new thing.
Instead of clicking "next-next-next" as you do on Windows, you have at least 3 competing versions of installing things.
* you have pkg installers (sometimes zipped, sometimes just .pkg files)
* you have those .app bundles that you need to manually move to Application (they are sometimes in a zip and sometimes in a DMG, further complicating things)
* you now also have an app store (that keeps requiring you to enter iCloud password - different from OS password - all the time for some weird reason)
And don't try to even uninstall anything.
* app store apps are uninstalled by ... holding them in Launchpad view, which is never needed anywhere else
* other apps... just are not un-installable, really.
The whole idea that programs have to be installed to run and uninstalled when no longer needed shows how many people were trained (mostly by Microsoft) to follow along the lines of poor user experience. As it is the norm, people call that 'intuitive'.
My sister interpreted that as drag it onto the application icon that was in her task bar, so she kept trying to drag it onto the App Store icon because it looked kind of similar.
Yeah, it's easy to understand if you already understand it (some will have a "Drag to Applications" text to help) - but I prefer the applications where if you start it from the DMG it asks if you'd like to move it to Applications, and then does so and ejects the DMG for you.
How many times have we found a friend's Mac with 10-20 DMGs mounted?
Back in the 1980s and 90s, the differences between MacOS and Windows were as day and night. (Windows 1 didn't even support overlapping windows. Windows 3 had weird stuff like icons that didn't map to underlying filesystem objects so when you dragged a "file" to the "trash" you weren't actually deleting a file, you were deleting a symbolic representation of the file. Windows put a separate menu bar in every window, unlike MacOS, which was a significant waste of screen real estate back in an age when VGA -- 480x640 pixel -- screens were normal. And Windows font handling was horrendous.)
Circa Windows 95, Microsoft found workarounds for the most obstructive of Apple and Xerox's patents on GUIs. There were still weird differences, though. Mac had pull-down menus, Windows had drop-down. (Today, macOS has drop-down menus because that ship sailed decades ago.)
Anyway, the story of macOS vs. Windows is one of convergent evolution over a period of about 3 decades, and in the meantime, each of those operating systems has been substantially replaced under the hood -- Windows is no longer a graphical shell running on top of DOS, and MacOS is no longer a cooperative-tasking 68000 based system: Windows has VMS heritage rather than DOS, and Mac has BSD UNIX heritage rather than MacOS.
TLDR: in the age of the dinosaurs (1984-94) Macs clearly were easier to learn and use than Windows. Today, not so much.
637 comments
[ 8.2 ms ] story [ 575 ms ] threadWindows has installers, which makes since for "installing", but I agree there is a lot of inconsistency in windows installers. And at least Mac is consistently weird.
The MacOS desktop is...a poor experience even compared with linux. And don't get me started on the Finder app. That has to be one of the most infuriatingly bad applications I've ever used. It's opinionated in mostly the wrong ways and is cumbersome to use to navigate around to actually find anything.
I'm forced to use Mac at work, and I find both Windows and Linux to be more powerful and less constrained as technical work environments.
Too much of MacOS is designed around hiding functionality and protecting non-technical users, but the way they do it is uneven and awkward. Building code requires you to accept license agreements in ten different inconsistent places, you have to hit hotkeys to delete things or mark them as executable. File paths are hidden unless you jump through hoops, Apple is always shoving Safari and iTunes down your throat, the context menu is littered with useless garbage like "Look up X", the desktop environment requires 3rd party plugins for power use, XCode is the single worst IDE I've ever had to use, ...
Finder is the worst file browser in the world. This is probably my top complaint and sums up why Apple is so frustrating. It's like Apple is trying to hide information from you and gives me the impression that they only care about the superficial appearance of their Finder app over its actual functionality. Explorer and Nautilus are miles better in every use case: finding files, listing files, managing files, navigating directory trees, mounting remove volumes, ... Finder makes all of these tasks incredibly tedious, hiding them as much as possible so the app looks minimal and uncluttered. It's horrible.
Apple even removed the escape key from their laptops at one point, which should go to show you that technical users are not their primary audience.
I'd recommend Mac for editing text documents, but not much else. Even file management feels second class to the point I'd want to work on video and 3d workflows in Windows instead. I'd never want to program on a Mac.
Why does it only have colorful icons instead of icons+text? I use a bunch of IDEs that visually look the same, but their functionality is wildly different. This is a usability nightmare.
From a UI perspective, it's 90% identical to windows. From a UX perspective though, something fundamental like Finder is still not up to the job IMO. Why is it that when I click Finder, nothing actually opens? I have to hit Option+N to actually display a Finder window.
Don't even get me started on the sort options. What kind of file manager applies a Sort view to every single directory, instead of the one you actually set the Sort view to?
I'm not sure what you're doing wrong here - when I click the Finder icon it shows me the top Finder window, or opens a new one if there is no window. Is this not what it does for you?
If you have many windows, it can be hard to notice (especially if you have many monitors).
macOS will do its thing when you click the dock icon and bring the window to the front, but it can be hard to notice because only a sliver of the window will actually be visible.
Arguably, it's intuitive:
* If you know what you are doing, you can go to the menu bar or click on the icon again.
* If you don't know know what you are doing, the obvious action is to blame yourself and click the icon again, which does open a window (to the Recents folder). So it's gaslighting a little, but it is intuitive.
I'm not sure what you're talking about - you cannot quit Finder and the app is always open. You can only force restart it but it is never in a quit state for you to do what you're say you're doing, and if you do force-start it it behaves as already described.
And that was definitely a bug at one point. Whenever I encountered it years ago, I was always bemused thinking about how a typical user would ever figure out how to open Finder and get to their files. No matter how many times you clicked the dock icon, the window would never appear. Of course, I know to use Cmd+N; and nowadays, a new Finder window opens as expected when clicked.
I think this sentiment largely comes from the era when Microsoft Windows XP was the dominant Windows flavor and also the ME/Vista debacles.
The article isn’t wrong though, so things do seem a bit weird if you don’t know they work. MacOS is far from perfect, it is however much more consistent than Windows.
I use all three major desktop OSes regularly now, and overall Windows just feels like the most user-friendly and straightforward, though of course it too has issues (e.g. various settings/control panel options being randomly split between new style and old style systems).
Oh, and Linux seems to be by far the least stable. I have apps freezing the whole damn computer way more often there than the other two.
I understand the reasoning for protecting the end user, but like UAC in Windows, or Developer Mode options in Android, you should be able to disable these protections. If I want to run a binary, I want to run that binary.
You can also unhide hidden dot folders as well if you wish but by default those are hidden. I don't have the instructions for that right now but a google search can find it for you if you want it.
I suppose it's an attempt to conceal/abstract away the underlying file system structure, which probably makes sense if those folders are already on the sidebar.
You should be able to use cmd+shift+h to always jump to the home directory in finder. I remember having the same real annoyance until I discovered the hotkey.
Kind of ironic considering all the research Apple did that led to the spatial finder.
I go back to Windows occasionally and I still hate every single thing about it. The tiles, the file system, the telemetry, the intrusive updates that guarantee I'll have to wait for an undefined time before I can get some work done, the driver lottery (still...) And many more.
MacOS is more of a workable OS with some really stupid warts. They should have been fixed years ago, but they probably won't be, ever.
Finder is particularly bad, and has needed a complete overhaul for at least a decade.
But Apple's other apps are heading in an MS-ish direction - which is more controlling and constraining, and less intuitive and transparent. It really shouldn't be as hard as it is to export photos from Photos, and the screen grabber should just allow saving to any file location instead of getting in the way with some random-ish defaults, one of which can be customised, if only you remember you need to.
This all reeks of second-rate middle management - untalented PMs trying to justify their existence with poorly-designed updates while more serious issues go unaddressed.
Apple are a weird company. When they're in the zone they can hit it out of the park, like with the M1. But - ironically - desktop UI design is not the model it could be. If MacOS 11 ever happens (not holding my breath...) it would be just as likely to be a step backwards as forwards.
This is a common criticism but it's entirely false. Windows offers a lot more way to delay or refuse updates than macOS. When macOS wants to update, the best you can do is "Ask again tomorrow". And pray you see the popup before it reboots in 60 seconds.
But, I still haven't figured out how to delay Windows updates (granted I haven't looked into it seriously yet since I only use it for casual gaming).
The point is, the default UI allows users to delay they update on MacOS easily, while Windows does not.
macOS just nags you everyday.
1) Edit the toolbar and add "Path" dropdown
2) View menu -> Show path bar
3) Cmd + up/down arrows to navigate up and down the path hierarchy
But of course, when talking about how intuitive Macs are, having all that hidden by default doesn't exactly make it easy to understand where you are in the filesystem. It feels a bit like the Mac side of their desire to just not have a user visible filesystem on the iPad, which thankfully they've given up on it because shooting documents back and forth between apps via Share buttons was terrible.
Also what size your file manager should be is a function of what else you have on the screen which is inevitably variable so you end up resizing and moving windows to fit in with an arrangement that is different than last time you opened that directory. It's vastly easier if you want 2 directories shown side by side is to just use the traditional split view.
The fact that size and position are arbitrarily chosen even if they are per directory means that there is no mental map between position and position in the filesystem hierarchy.
Spatial browsing is a poor metaphor based on nothing that never made any sense whatsoever.
Relatedly, IMO iOS took a huge step backwards in UX when iOS7 moved away from a highly spatial interaction metaphor for practically the entire OS—by which I don't mean the skeuomorphism, exactly, but things like folders sliding the screen "open" when tapped, so that they had a sense of physical location within the main screen. Or "slide to unlock" looking like a physical slider so you didn't even need to read it to know what to do. The loss of the security blanket that was the physical (or at least faux-physical) home button has hurt it, too.
It also only worked well when you only had a few files in any folder. If you have 100 files that are related in one folder and you can't find anything without sorting it alphabetically. Depending on how your brain organizes things this might not matter.
> Where's file X for project A?
> On the floppy disk for project A.
And that more or less continued for most users through the 90s, but then it got confusing to the entry-level user:
> Where's file X for project A?
> In My Documents, under the folder "Project X".
Which, I'd bet, is one of the reasons why cloud-based editors have taken off - the file is "in Google Docs", rather than in a directory hierarchy on the filesystem. GDocs presents me with a more or less flat view of all of my documents. I hate this - I have to go over to Google Drive to organize them - but I can understand how it'd be much more approachable to the average user.
It's basically hidden entirely in iOS, probably for this reason.
Cmd-click on the folder in the Finder window title, and go up as far as you want?
It's not obvious in the slightest. No affordance indication, no tooltip, no flashing indicator or walkthrough demonstration when you get a new Mac, nothing happens if you hover over it or click it, no real reason to think there'd be extra functionality in an unadorned window title, etc.
I like the hardware and I like the advantages of a *nix OS for dev stuff (compared to Windows - at least pre-WSL), but the only thing MacOS has going for it is looking graphically decent and having decent performance (as far as I can tell). The actual UX is quite odd and arcane in many ways. Definitely not intuitive.
And any time there is a complaint, the community is like "Oh, dummy, just do this thing that is not obvious at all, how could you not figure that out?"
You can say that again. I never had to interact with a Mac in my life (Macs weren't popular in Eastern Europe so I grew up with Windows and Linux) and later in life at one job interview, the tech lead gave me his Macbook and told me to code a sorting function in JS and stepped out for 10 minutes. Within that time, I accidentally performed some swipe gesture on the trackpad which hid my code editor away with me unable to find it as I had no visible taskbar and all I had visible was a Chrome window so I started googling how to get my code window back. When the tech lead came back I apologized and told him I couldn't finish the task since I hid the code editor by accident and had to google how to use the OS.
I'm biased here of course, but IMHO for someone new to the OS, MacOS UX discoverability is worse than Windows or major Linux DEs.
I've annoyed a couple of people by disabling all their hot corners when I've used their Macs lol.
That or explain the arrow-key centric keyboard navigation, which has fewer exceptions than Explorer.
But there are plenty of shortcuts on Windows that are the way they are for historical reasons, not because of user-centric design.
How often is that? What hardware do you run it on? What distro do you use?
Its more stable than it used to be, but the desktop manager still keeps hanging every fortnight or so. Changing the brightness, right after unlocking my laptop is a recipe for getting frustrated, and eventually having to hard restart the computer. Other micro issues pop up every now and then.
Two different Ryzen APU based computers I've built running whatever Ubuntu happened to be the latest. Tried both KDE and XFCE and they freeze about 1-2 times a week. The computers haven't crashed and if you ssh in everything seems to be running fine, but mouse/keyboard/screen are completely frozen. One computer dual boots Windows and I can run Windows for a month on it without rebooting and it never misses a beat.
I have left firefox overnight and had a tab decide it would like to eat all my memory.
Linux does have an oom killer to deal with out of memory situations but it will kick in halfway to the heat death of the universe and you will reboot first.
Oom looks just like a crash the UI is frozen however if the offender is killed everything actually is working.
The solution is a userspace oom daemon like earlyoom that kicks in before you actually run entirely out of memory and knows not to kill things like X.
Distributions ought to ship with it.
It's careful attention to detail like this that keeps Linux relevant for the next generation!
(I'm kidding, of course. I was recently trying to reproduce some Node test flakiness that only happened on CI, which has limited resources and exposes timing sensitivity. I had trouble getting this to happen on my 32 core workstation, so I decided to run 100 copies of the tests in parallel which definitely reproduced the issue -- and ran the machine out of memory. The OOM killer kicked in, and chose to kill all the extra Node processes without killing my SSH session, which was nice of it.)
It sounds odd to me to describe applications relying on a toolkit like QT/GTK which can run in dozens of different environments which in turn run on both X11 and Wayland which in turn can talk to a variety of different GPU drivers as tightly coupled.
You mean install it by default? Even good old Debian stable ships with earlyoom (which I'm ofc using, since I saw it mentioned here once on HN).
Yeah, I wonder why this happens. I've seen LKML emails trying to address this problem, they even cited Firefox as an example:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/4/15
This also seems to be the norm in user space software. I've read a lot of source code where people simply assume malloc never fails. Tried to discuss this on freenode once, apparently nobody knows what to do in case the system is out of memory. Why can't it gracefully degrade?
I'm not sure Windows is such a great example in the conversation about file systems, what with its "collections" and abstract hierarchy which is sometimes upside down and somewhat – but not fully! – circular.
Open an explorer window, click on your name under "quick access". You're in the home directory. You also have a "Desktop" folder there. Go in there. You see your desktop files. So far so good.
Now go back to your user folder and click "up". You're now in "desktop". What?! Only now, there's other stuff in there. How many desktops are there?!
Now go back to your user folder, choose any folder. Click on the address bar. C:\users\your_name\your_folder. Click twice "up", you expect to be in C:\users, right? Ha!
Now type C:\users\your_name\your_folder, or browse through the C:\ in the left pane. Click the address bar and compare with earlier. Now click up. Very intuitive. Depending on how you got somewhere, your apparent hierarchy is not the same.
Back to the "quick collection" thing, there's a desktop entry there. Click it. Looks like the first desktop folder, so no surprise here, right?. Click up. You end up in "my computer"!
Now, do the same operations in Finder. How many different desktops are there? Not sure how Windows is more logical or user-friendly.
I side with the other poster who said that most "common users" just don't understand file systems, and so they put everything on the desktop because it doesn't go away.
This is really helpful to know - it's one of my biggest bugaboos about using Finder & navigating the Mac GUI.
On the other hand, I suspect this kind of obscure key-based shortcut is a big part of why Macs don't feel intuitive to a lot of users. How could I have known this shortcut exists? It's not broadcast anywhere obvious. My options for finding all these obscure shortcuts aren't great. I could scroll through a submenu in the Settings pane, hoping to find something that looks like it says the thing I'm trying to do (and then that I can figure out what keys it means, since Apple key symbology is VERY arcane). I could stumble across a mention of the shortcut in a forum like this. Or I could Google in the hope of finding something - though that assumes I believe it's doable in the first place, which I didn't in this particular case.
It would also help if Apple chose easier / more intuitive keyboard shortcuts. A "shortcut" which both is the only way to do something, and also requires pressing a minimum of four seemingly-random keys, is not a shortcut at all - it's a mental load on the user that they just have to hold in their heads forever.
Shortcuts mostly appear in the menus, but I remember one in particular being elusive: cmd + down. I've found it out by asking a friend.
I think there is supposed to be a method to the madness, though it's maybe less and less clear nowadays, especially with applications that don't implement them correctly (such as MS Office, electron apps, etc) and people being very used to Windows' conventions.
For example, the modifier keys' names are usually an indication of what you can achieve with them.
CMD (the "flower-like" key, directly next to the space bar) is usually the one used to produce... commands. As in Copy, Save, etc.
Then you have your ALTernative / Option, which usually modifies some other key's usual behaviour. You can obtain dead keys with it. ALT+e / e = é. etc. It also works in menus to obtain alternative actions. You can click a menu, press alt, and see the entries change.
And CTRL deals with control characters. ctrl-c in the terminal, line editing (ctrl-a in any text field goes to the beginning of the line, etc). It's not clear to me why right click is obtained with control and not alt, though...
That is insane. Who came up with that? Why do some entries lose their ellipsis when you hold alt? How is anyone expected to know any of this?
At least, on macOS, if you press OPT, the entries will change. On Windows, if you click right → delete, the file isn't deleted. It's moved to the recycle bin. "How are you supposed to know that?". On Mac, it says "move to trash" or similar. Now say you don't want that. If you hold Shift and click delete, it actually deletes it. But if you hold Shift while looking at the Windows menu, it still says "delete".
There are quite a lot of "have to know" things in other OSs, too. They each come with a mental model which may be closer or further from the user's.
I think the issues we see nowadays come up because many apps work the same everywhere, and people may switch between systems more often, so figure since <app> works the same, everything works the same.
It's also hard to think that what comes naturally is actually a mental model that's been ingrained and not something "absolute".
I guess this is why computers used to have manuals, but who reads those anymore?
You're not. Shortcuts are a power user thing. If you want to move the window you drag it.
> There are quite a lot of "have to know" things in other OSs, too.
Oh definitely. It just seems to me that OSX is exceptionally bad at telegraphing these things. On windows and even linux most all features have something visible to clue you in to their existence. OSX seems to do its best to hide things instead.
The problem with these features is that people have varying needs and don’t understand or respect what they are! Filing is a great example, everyone keeps files, but most people have no organization. That’s why once upon a time companies hired people to file things. It’s also why Apple tried to kill the file metaphor for iOS.
MacOS has the wacky finder UI, but the search is best in class and once people discover it, they just go away and do their thing.
I’ve used macOS for 16 years, hitting enter/return still feels weird.
Return is a holdover from typewriters. It means "return the carriage to the left margin". I'm surprised the Mac keyboard doesn't say "Enter". It seems like a much more accurate word to describe what the button does.
Yes, "Return" applies in the context of editing text (return the cursor to left margin) but not in any other context on a computer I can think of.
I wonder why they continue to label it return and not enter.
/end random musing
edit: Downthread, someone provided a link to a StackOverflow page explaining how MacOS treats enter and return differently in some rare instances (it's program specific).
After using both for a long time (Windows for 30 years (!) and Mac OS for 16), I actually like the Mac OS way a bit better. In my usage renaming is a very common operation and I don't have F keys on my usual keyboard (renaming in Windows is F2).
But what I mean is that Finder navigating uses an unintuitive key chord you have to learn, while renaming uses a single key, and a large and very common/obvious/intuitive one. This does in fact mean the UX is declaring which one they expect to be more common. I'm not saying renaming is uncommon, but for me it's nowhere near the usage of navigating into a folder. Are you saying you're renaming folders more often than browsing into them? (How do you get to the folder you want to rename?)
Both Windows and Linux GUI folder browsers use the Enter key to navigate, and so do many other tree browser UIs including our web browsers. It's very common and very reasonable to expect Enter to navigate to the thing you've selected. This expectation and ecosystem of navigating this way means that Mac's Finder stands out as different and unintuitive, even within a Mac-only set of applications. I love my Mac, and I've also used both Windows and Mac since they first existed ... both for 35 years. But today's Finder is definitely weird and anachronistic compared nearly all other modern file browsers.
Whether renaming as “enter” is a good shortcut or not, I think the navigation ones are perfectly reasonable in that if you learn one of them, it’s opposite is easily guessed.
Because you're always in an app in macOS, Cmd+O is the more consistent choice: every app you're in will use Cmd+O for "open." In Finder, what you're opening is apps or files, so it works.
Return for rename makes sense in a more subtle way.
Besides opening a file, there are two "main" actions you'll use in Finder: renaming files, and quick-playing files. In a dialogue box, you'll either use Return or Spacebar (the former for triggering the highlighted button, the latter for another button you highlight with the Tab key).
Consider again the consistency-across-apps argument. "Rename" isn't a super common command in all kinds of apps (a DAW will allow you to rename tracks, but that idea doesn't really apply to a text editor or IDE), so using Cmd+R in Finder for "rename" isn't necessarily great for consistency, considering that apps in general will almost surely bind something to Cmd+R ("run" or something like that).
Due to the aforementioned dialogue box pattern, Spacebar or Return are the obvious choices for rename, simply by virtue of being used so much.
Spacebar technically makes more sense because quick-play is adjacent to opening a file, but the ergonomics of "Spacebar = play" across so much media makes it the obvious choice for that. So, Return it is.
For example: an experienced user is more likely to notice that closing a window in macOS backgrounds the app, and more likely to figure out how to fully exit the app process completely (either via Cmd+Q or menu>Quit). Given that, an experienced user is less likely to grow accustomed to all of their apps being in a backgrounded state, and find Finders forced background state unusual/exceptional.
In contrast, an inexperienced computer user will likely leave all apps they use open all the time (possibly not realising they're running) and as such grow more quickly accustomed to having to Option+N for everything (not just Finder).
There's a lot of such examples in macOS.
I'm re-reading my own comment as both replies to it seem to have taken the opposite point that I intended, but I can't see where I said the macOS behaviour is bad. I personally like it (though I wasn't saying that either).
My only point was that it being less intuitive for more techy users doesn't mean it's not generally very intuitive for the majority.
macOS has those also, programs can live on the menu bar.
But in macOS, closing the last window basically never exits the program. Even for a program like Element, which is just an Electron view, closing the window doesn't quit the program, even though what's left over is useless: there's no way to relaunch the Electron pane except to quit and start it again.
This is just how macOS works: if you want to quit, you type Cmd-Q, if you want to close windows, red button or Cmd-W, and closing windows won't quit your program.
If you open up QuickTime Player and then play back a video, then close the video, as soon as you background the app, it auto-quits itself. I wonder if they made it behave this way at some point to get around a memory leak. It's such an unexpected thing and it infuriates me each time I encounter it.
There's plenty (an increasing number, IME) of Windows apps that work that way, but mostly if an app exists to facilitate some kind of user interaction via a UI and there's no worries open there's no reason for it to be open, so no windows = closed app is a fairly same convention.
> Even for a program like Element, which is just an Electron view, closing the window doesn't quit the program, even though what's left over is useless:
I think that last part pretty well illustrates why “closing all windows is not closing the app”, while it make sense in many cases, is not a great model to be applied inflexibly.
I mentioned that Element is just an Electron view because it doesn't behave like a native Mac app. The correct thing to do is to offer a menu item which would bring the view back.
VLC is a good example of an app which works correctly in this way. There's only the one window, which shows either the playlist or the video. If you close it, VLC stays open, and there's a menu item which will bring it back.
Of course VLC can also open files, so Cmd-O is useful here, and Element doesn't happen to support more than one window... because it's a browser view dressed as a Mac app. If it were native, it would be a no-brainer to support multiple windows, each with a given user account.
So yes, there are some edge cases where an application offers exactly one window, and there's no reason to close that window instead of closing the app. But the Mac-native thing to do is to offer a menu item to bring that window back, instead of breaking consistency by having that program just disappear on you when you close the window.
I'd say both behaviours could be equally surprising to any user, regardless of their previous OS biases but either way that's not really related to the point I was making.
I was just saying that an inexperienced user will notice technical details less (e.g. the ramifications of processes continuing to run in the background without windows, the dock status indicators showing they're still open, the fact they show up in the app switcher, etc.) and as such won't be inclined to "take control" of that default behaviour in a way that an experienced user might, due to their heightened awareness of it.
There are two kinds of novice users:
* Leave all apps and windows open forever * Close everything as soon as context switches, avoiding with multitasking.
You can also blend the two, but closing all windows you leave, but leave open forever when the system forces a switch.
> grow more quickly accustomed to having to Option+N
Novice users don't know what Option+N is. The Mac was always designed to be used without hotkeys.
This was my point. I don't think "Leave all windows open forever" is specifically a type of novice user: I've met expert users who do this. But I was rather focused on the "Leave all macOS apps open forever" not because they're content with apps being open, but simply because it's non-obvious that the apps are running.
e.g. my mother is a "close everything" user: she even manually logs out of all online sessions immediately whenever she's finished with that tab (often entering credentials again many times in a browsing session if she needs to return to a site). She really can't stand having multiple things active simultaneously. She leaves all apps running (windowlessly) all the time on macOS. She would not be happy if I told her they were still running in the background.
I agree that there's a lot of counter intuitive if not worse UI ideas.
But it's surrounded by tons of superb tricks. Remember the live document preview years ago ?
Also the GUI guidelines made the system visually more appealing.
The compositor is also weird, I cannot really explain but when I use a Mac I don't see layers.. I don't feel like i'm clicking on a button, then an event is sent, then some logic occurs.. maybe it's only subjective bias (can't be 100%) but it feels more direct. Maybe they tailored the graphical subsystem / compositor to ensure extremely low latency I can't say.. but, even after using countless machines and countless desktop environments.. the first time I used a mac I felt something very different. Not better .. but deeply different.
One of my favorites just happened yesterday with finder - I was trying to figure out how to rename a file, well the usual fx keys aren't doing it so the common process was to go to the toolbar context menu where hotkey is indicated next to the action's text. Rename for some reason had no hotkey indication! [1] so naturally I'm thinking it's somehow not bounded, google around for hotkey editing etc just to findout it's the least obvious key: return.
1 - https://i.imgur.com/LtcrBPU.png
When you say the 'usual' function keys... do you really mean some other system's function keys? Why would you expect macOS to use the same function keys as a different system? There's no standards body for these things.
Yes there is -- it's called CUA (Common User Access)
"The subset of CUA implemented in Microsoft Windows or OSF/Motif is generally considered a de facto standard to be followed by any new Unix GUI environment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access
Apparently[1] the original intent was to allow the user to just type and rename the file, but the enter key was quickly added after they noticed that the display models all had garbage filenames. It was an early tweak that stuck (much to the chagrin of those of us who also use other systems). Why they never added it to the context menu is beyond me.
[1] https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...
My head-cannon about this is that for consistency within macos, all actions must be cmd+something, so is cmd+O for opening a file. In the terminal you can also use the "open" command which opens the file or the directory (I use "open ." a lot, I find faster navigating in the shell that in the finder).
Which is why I always try Cmd+R for renaming a file and then nothing happens.
But I would argue F2 is less obvious. It's only obvious if you learned it at some point or if you were there when F2 was chosen. Enter is at least a normal text editing key for day to day typing, and it's already the bookend key to finish typing a new name.
Now I've used windows for a decade, and I still overall dislike it. But that doesn't mean these things are done "wrong" they are just done differently and not how I'd expect.
Windows doesn't place the light switches where I'm accustomed to. For example hy are there so many menus bars on each window. It's simpler to always know where the menu is at the top and it creates less screen clutter. Why does windows quit a program when close the document. If I wanted to quit it, I would have quit it. I just wanted a new document. These are just a few of the things that aren't bad but just aren't the philosophy I'd come to expect. Control-alt-delete to log in? Why?! I can't hit that one handed easily! Good thing I have two hands. And yeah bash or shell is kinda mess, but powershell is a verbose and has bureaucratic feel. It's just not my cup of tea but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
As a long-time Mac, Windows, and Linux user... I'll say that there are plenty of random broken things on the Mac, but there are also a few nice things that work very consistently on the Mac, but you'd never think to try them because you're used to them not working on Linux or Windows. So if you have been using Linux or Windows a long time, you will probably find macOS frustrating, just for the reason that it is different from what you are used to, and not because there are fundamental flaws with macOS or Windows.
Just an example of a couple simple things that are easy on a Mac, but hard on Linux/Windows: saving a file to a specific location. Let's say you have a Finder window open, and an unsaved document open in an application, and you want to save the open document to the folder that's open in the Finder.
1. You could go to the app and hit save, bringing up the save dialog, and then drag the folder (perhaps from the icon in the title bar) into the save dialog. This moves the save dialog to point to that folder.
2. You could save the file somewhere else, and drag the file (perhaps from the icon in the title bar) into the folder.
3. You could save the file on the desktop, and then move it into the desired folder.
I have not really ever figured out a nice way to do this on Windows. I often end up having to navigate through save dialogs on Linux and Windows and it seems unnecessary. Windows certainly doesn't let you move files that are open, which is a frustrating restriction when you run into it.
> Why is it that when I click Finder, nothing actually opens?
It brings Finder forward, and opens a new window if there are no Finder windows open, which is the same behavior as other Mac apps.
> Don't even get me started on the sort options. What kind of file manager applies a Sort view to every single directory, instead of the one you actually set the Sort view to?
Command J lets you set the view options, it's per-directory and includes sorting & grouping. Per-directory options don't do anything in column view. I'm not sure what you're doing, so I don't know what's missing. I switched to column view in the early 2000s and only occasionally switch to list view when I need to sort a massive folder by file sizes (which, unfortunately, requires command-J and checking "calculate all sizes", which is not something you'd know to look for).
You can do this in Windows. Save the file, open the save dialog again, drag the file icon to the Explorer window with the folder you want open. Hold shift to toggle copy/move.
I could move the file, but this broke the association with the open document. I saved to ~/test.txt, then moved it to ~/Documents/test.txt, and saved a second time. The second time I saved it, it saved the file to ~/test.txt, which is incorrect and useless. Now I have two files, but no action I took as a user should have created two files--moving a file should not create a second copy, and saving an open file should not have created a second copy, so why should moving and saving create a second copy?
On Windows, you typically get an error message, because you can't move an open file. (Not all applications keep the file open, so this doesn't always happen.) Personally, I think that enforcing exclusive locks is the worst, most significant design flaw in the entire history of the Windows operating system.
Only on macOS do you get the nice, expected behavior... it does not matter if you move a file while it is open in an application. When a file is open in an application, the open file is associated with the file, not with the pathname. You can rename a file in the Finder or reorganize a bunch of files in the Finder (or do the same in the terminal) and it does not matter whether those files are open in any applications. You can reorganize files in the Finder, and then when you save open documents, they save to the new location, not the old one. If you rename files in the Finder or rename a bunch of files with a script in the terminal, the windows for open documents you renamed will update their titles to match the new names.
The problem here is that (opinion time) the standard filesystem API is a really terrible interface. What you want is some way to create durable references to files. File handles can do that, but only while your application is open. Paths can do it while your application is closed, but the reference is lost if you move the file. On macOS, there's a standard API which provides something more persistent than file handles and more durable than paths. I think they're called "bookmarks" now, but they used to be called "aliases".
In RiscOS, drag-n-drop saving was the norm. You were not presented with a dialog, just an icon you could drag wherever you wanted the file to go. To me, this seems like a much more logical way to work with the desktop folder/file metaphor.
1. I have a folder open in Gnome's "Files" app. I can't drag it into the dialog--there's nothing draggable. I could go up a level to the enclosing folder, drag the child folder into the save folder, and then go back down a level to the child folder... these extra steps seem a bit unnecessary. So it's doable, but clunky.
2. I saved a file in GEdit somewhere else. How do I move it? There is nothing to drag. On macOS, there is an icon in the title bar of the window (called the proxy icon) that can be dragged where you like.
3. I saved the file in GEdit on the desktop as ~/Desktop/file.txt, then moved it to ~/.../.../file.txt. Then I made some more changes in GEdit, and saved it again... now I have two files! GEdit was not aware that the file had moved, and when I saved it, it created a second copy of the file, which is unexpected and wrong.
If this is working for you, perhaps you could share the exact steps?
I think one of the problems here is that on Linux, there is no real way to drag an open object... you can only drag things out of containers, but you can't drag things without first opening the container. For example, you can't drag an open folder into a save window, you have to first open the parent folder. You also can't drag an open document into an open window, you have to open the parent folder. There's not even a clear way to do that--on macOS, you can command-click the name in the title bar of the window and select the parent folder from the drop-down... not saying this is intuitive, but it does work which is a massive step up from not working at all.
With 2 and 3 - yes you're right I didn't realise that was how it worked on macos! Those are both interesting features I haven't seen elsewhere. Although I think 3 would be possible to implement say in gedit, as the inode of the file you save shouldn't change when you move it in the file manager, everything in Linux is usually path-based so this might be kind of unexpected.
You could implement this yourself on Linux, for sure, but it's been around on macOS since System 7 appeared in 1991 and everything uses it.
I don't think drag and drop is the most intuitive, but it's way worse with Windows. I think there are at least four iterations of those Open/Save windows (dating to Windows 95).
A tool called Direct Folders [1] adds a recent menu that shows all open folders and revenge, making those windows slightly more usable
1: https://www.codesector.com/directfolders
Finder is bizarre in that it hasn't really changed much at all in 20+ years.
2. Right-click on the folder name in a Finder window to see and go up the folder hierarchy.
3. Make sure Finder is active and go to the View menu and select Show Path Bar.
4. I'm not sure what you're talking about with Sort View here, but Windows works the same as macOS and on both platforms, you can have it both ways.
https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/welcome/mac
I used Mac OS 7 and 8 extensively back in the day, and despite some UI similarities it was a totally different experience from Windows machines. The computers had totally different ports (parallel and ps/2 vs proprietary mac connectors), and a different set of software (Clarisworks vs Word Perfect). There were even developers who made games just for Macs like Ambrosia Software.
Nowadays, you can basically use the same software (Chrome, Slack, VSCode, Steam) on Windows, Mac, or Linux. And can share a USB-C hub between a Macbook and a Dell.
It might simply be the fact that I've never used a mac as a primary device. But, clicks, navigating the explorer and settings menus seem to be a lot simpler on windows. It also seems to be almost malicious in punishing you for using something that isn't a 1st party application.
The only other time a software has made me feel so incompetent is shitty TV UIs and Snapchat.
I can see why it is loved by people deeply invested in the walled garden and programmers who get a happy marriage of Linux and mature consumer OS. But, I would find it hard to recommend a macbook to someone who didn't lie in those 2 camps.
Unbelievable how devs put up with this.
cut. There does not seem to be a way to cut and paste a file/folder. The best I could figure out is to drag the icons, hold down the finger, and move the cursor to the desired folder on the sidebar (or another window) and release the finger. This is either extremely difficult to pull of, or I am less dexterous than I think I am.
Why not have cut as an option in the drop down menu? I really can't figure this one out. What UX mantra suggests this.
Also, dragging files around is also a difficult feat to overcome. You either press down too hard (end up opening all selected files in their target applications -- RIP ram, let's restart the computer), or too gently and nothing happens.
I remember this command was I implemented a few years back and I think it was to reduce chances of unpasted files from disappearing or something.
In fact, opening any menu and pressing option reveals many secondary functions.
If you right click to open the context menu, and press OPT, you'll even see the "paste item" option turn into "move item".
It's 100% the wrong way to do it. Maddeningly wrong. In a world where CTRL-X hadn't existed for decades, and Apple's way of doing it was the norm, if someone came along and "invented" CTRL-X for the cut command, it would be universally recognized as an improvement.
Pressing Cmd+C means I've "grabbed the file." Now I can decide what I want to do with it. I might want to just move it (cut/paste = opt+cmd+v), or I might want to copy it (copy/paste = cmd+v). But the fact is, I can change my mind mid-action.
Not cutting files is deliberate, I think. What should the OS do if you cut files, and then don't paste them and cut something else? Put them back, put them in the Trash?
A sibling comment pointed out that there's a magic incantation for "paste and delete", but clearly the Mac way to do it is drag and drop.
Which used to be dead easy, and now I'm lucky if I get it the first time.
Of course, "Copy" does too, yet Mac allows that...
But I agree with you that it would be a good feature for Finder! Finder is missing a lot of useful stuff, it basically hasn't changed, and when it has it isn't for the better.
While we're dreaming, a great implementation of "grab" would be to have a differently-shaped window with just a doc handle and a close button on it, and the grabbed documents jump from the Finder window to the grab window. Then you can drag and drop the doc handle, or hit the "move grabbed items" hotkey, and the grabbed files/folders would jump into the new location. Or if you close the grab window they all jump back to where they were.
Grab window floats on top of everything else in Finder, so you can't lose track of it, and if you close it the files always go home, and you can only have one at a time.
> What should the OS do if you cut files, and then don't paste them and cut something else?
Windows, and common linux file managers leave the files in place in this scenario. Its not the most intuitive thing, but people (i think) understand this is what'll happen if you cut something and then cut something again.
> magic incantation
About that. I love how a combination of control, alt, command, function and tab keys can make you into a keyboard ninja but I also can't help but feel that it's a bit much. For the first few months after getting a mac, about 20-30% of my search engine queries were about these keyboard shortcuts. It's a steep slope. And the combinations often do something very fundamental that you often use tens of time a day. For instance, I was today years old when I realize that 'command+down' opens a file.
that's one thing when it's copied text from some web page, but quite another when it's a file or folder.
- There's no way to create an empty file
- There's no easy way to cut a file/folder (Cmd-x doesn't work)
- There's no (?) way to keep everything consistently sorted and aligned
- ~~Tags are useless and just take up space for nothing~~ This one is entirely subjective. I retract it.
- No "parent folder"...
There's some great features in Finder but it sucks at so many things it's just frustrating to use. Windows Explorer is infinitely better. It has less cool features (no tabs for instance) but is so much better to actually use.
I get that some features are hidden to avoid confusing non savvy users, but preventing experimented users to do basic stuff is criminal.
Create it for what? To use to launch the app that handles it? Just open the respective app and save an empty or unedited file.
>- There's no easy way to cut a file/folder (Cmd-x doesn't work)
Copy as regularly (Cmd-C), and use Option-Cmd-V to move the file where you want to.
>- There's no (?) way to keep everything consistently sorted and aligned
Not sure what you mean.
>- Tags are useless and just take up space for nothing
They're useful if you use them. Many people do use them. What exactly would you do with that "space" anyway? It's not like they take space in your apartment. It's a UI element which you can use or not use.
>- No "parent folder"...
Cmd+up arrow or Go -> Enclosing Folder.
Looks like all of the complains are basically "they're not where they was on Windows".
This goes both ways. There have been whiny posts by Mac users who go to Windows (or from iOS to Android) and then gripe and complain about everything that isn't what they're accustomed to. It's just as silly.
>or don't follow a consistent convention and have to be done some other way.
The follow macOS conventions, not Windows conventions.
Well... yeah kinda but not only. Windows does some things better, and it seems like a good idea to copy good UX paradigms wherever they come from. Also for some of these your answere is "why do you want to do this?" or "use some obscure keyboard magic". I want to because I want to. Sometimes I'm in a folder and want to create a specific file because it fits my current workflow. I don't always do it, but sometimes I need to.
>Copy as regularly (Cmd-C), and use Option-Cmd-V to move the file where you want to.
I don't care, why is it not Cmd-X? Why do they break the universal standard with this?
Because there's no "universal standard". There's mac (which did UI/folders/etc before Windows), Windows, and there's X and modern Linux desktops which came late to the game and (especially traditional X) didn't have any consistent way to do this (or even oferred it).
Finder can do that too, but it doesn't show you it can do that. You have to know. I recently got a Macbook from work, partially because a Mac-fan coworker had been bugging me to switch from Windows to Mac. At some point I was showing something and typed a path straight into Finder, which blew his mind! He'd been using Macs for ages, and he just wasn't aware that Finder could do that. He learned something useful and new, but it's also quite telling that even some experienced Mac users aren't aware of the existence of such a vital feature.
Finder does that too. I didn't list it because it can be configured, which is IMO a sensible default for standard users.
>But there's one thing it gets right: it shows you where you are, and you can edit that to go anywhere.
YES! Finder allows to display a breadcrumb at the bottom, but the simplest way to go anywhere is Cmd+Shift+G. It sucks as a shortcut, and even then it's inferior to Explorer.
It's actually the opposite. The view for each folder is dependent on what's inside, and if Explorer is unable to decide, it defaults to Details view.
For example, dragging the Documents folder into a terminal pane becomes:
But dragging a file doesn't seem to be so easy anymore; half the time, it wants to rename the file instead. No idea why. I also thought it used to be possible to drag a pdf or other document that I have open in an app, to an email and attach it that way. That doesn't seem to work anymore.
> - There's no (?) way to keep everything consistently sorted and aligned
Press CMD-J to open up the visual option, you can auto group and sort, snap to grid (unsorted), choose a default view.
> - No "parent folder"...
You can either press CMD-UpArrow or just right click on the title bar to see all the folders above it.
> It has less cool features (no tabs for instance) but is so much better to actually use.
Windows Explorer is also missing column view, which is a much faster way to navigate the file system completely with the keyboard. I'm often frustrated in Windows Explorer just trying to move around directories.
I found this menu but missed the "default view" button, thanks!
It still boggles my mind that "non aligned on the grid" is the default though. It's a mess.
This infuriates me every time. This should be the default for the desktop (maybe) and absolutely no where else.
It's amazing how far Emacs has penetrated UI design.
This is one of the features I never miss and don't use on any other DE (like KDE). I just open the app, create the file and save. Maybe it's just habit, but I personally doesn't find it as a needed feature.
> There's no easy way to cut a file/folder (Cmd-x doesn't work)
Just drag it where you want while pressing CMD? I know it's not cut but it prevents a lot of errors I think.
> There's no (?) way to keep everything consistently sorted and aligned
It's called "Clean Up By". Available in right click menu and in the top menu probably. It'll always keep the order you choose.
> Tags are useless and just take up space for nothing.
On the contrary, this is something I love. I can just throw a bunch of files to a folder and tag them about what I'm going to do with them. Colors allow me to mentally sort them with no overhead.
> No "parent folder"...
Two-finger click to folder name on the finder. The path will be revealed as a reverse-ordered stack. Or just press back. It's parent folder 99% of the time.
I generally disable "Clean Up By" because I love to visually group my folders for some types of folders. e.g.: Assets there, source files here, readme and docs to that corner, etc.
However, sometimes an orderly folder is required and I enable Clean Up By date for example. That folder is always sorted by date.
or CMD+UP
> or CMD+UP
There's also a control that lets you jump to any ancestor directories, but it's not enabled by default.
To give perspective, I do weekly. I work often files that I need to modify or create files that have no native apps with UI. Key files, certs, etc.
Also, its way easier when working to just create file in already open dir than go open a program and try to navigate to the dir you already are. Eg local web development, I'm 10 dir deep somewhere obscure place.
I'm on windows.
That requires you to have both places visible on the screen at the same time. It's also a mouse+keyboard interaction, the least usbale kind of interaction.
You can drag a file across tabs, folders, dive in folders in finder, drag it across desktops and more.
> It's also a mouse+keyboard interaction, the least usbale kind of interaction.
I don't know you, but my left hand is on the keyboard all the time, and my thumb is on the command almost 99% percent of the time. It's just an instinct-like action for me.
Also, you can use cmd+opt+v it seems. TIL that.
Speaking about discoverability, I've just found it a few minutes ago searching for "move" in the help menu.
And you cannot apply it to all folders across the entire system. Why they still haven't fixed tis, is beyond me.
Try pressing cmd+j on a finder window.
When I checked on my El Capitan Mac (an Early 2008, non unibody MacBook Pro), opening my home folder in icon view and opening view options shows almost the exact screenshot I've shared on my previous comment, including "use as default button".
Moreover, any view except tri-column view produces a view options menu with "use as defaults" button. It has to be a real folder. All My Files is a view and is subject to different treatment. It may be the same with tri-column view because parent-sibling is blurred with multi-level view.
Basically:
If you open a folder from a "shortcut" from the sidebar, and press Cmd+J, you get the barren options from the screenshot: https://imgur.com/3meteoB. And it doesn't matter if you keep clicking on other folders
Since I always use just a few folders linked from the sidebar, that's what I would always get.
To get to the "actual finder window", you have to select a folder, and press Cmd + Down to "open it". Visually, nothing changes. But the View Options do: https://imgur.com/EJuqWDC
It still doesn't have the "set as default", but, at the very least, it now looks more like your screenshot.
I'm literally at a loss for words.
Edit: more over, if you Cmd+Tab back, and your current folder is a subfolder of an item in the sidebar, the Cmd-J panel resets back to its barren view. Why?!!
Personally, I'd recommend just not using the Column view. It seems pretty janky compared to the other options.
For what it's worth, Command+[ and Command+] will move back/forward between folders, just like Safari and elsewhere.
Holding down Shift with those commands will move between tabs in Finder.
Edit: I guess that "barren view" only happens when viewing things as "columns" mode. I just figured out how to make it look like yours. I always use list mode (as I often want to see/sort by date modified time or file type and I want to see file sizes). Columns view seems like a waste of screen real estate.
It has nothing to do with the sidebar. In column view it doesn't know what folder you're viewing so there's no display settings it can set because that's a per-folder option.
Edit2: I see your "less barren" options now, but it's still missing several options. And you don't need to do "Cmd+down", you can just double click a folder. This presumably forces it into understanding you're talking about a specific folder so it can display additional options.
Also it doesn't even appear to work, those extra options showing up is apparently a bug as none of the options change anything.
Finder is seriously broken
That will show the full path along the bottom, and you can move to any parent folder by double-clicking on it--which is, perhaps, not exactly intuitive :-).
Try making this trick work when your destination is three levels deep into a different hierarchy. Oh yes, you should have thought about it beforehand and opened two windows and pre-arranged them in a way so you can drag from one to another, because it's so intuitive! And yes, the metaphor of "take from one place, drop into other", which worked with documents, is completely broken, but somehow we pretend it still exists. And the worst thing - there's no reason for it to be this broken. It just is.
> It's called "Clean Up By". Available in right click menu and in the top menu probably.
I just checked, it's always greyed out on my finder. Who knows why, it's probably intuitive.
> Or just press back. It's parent folder 99% of the time.
Except no, it's the folder which you saw before that, which doesn't have to be parent at all.
I regularly do this to be honest. I drag the file to my home or Dropbox folder and dive from there. I also regularly drag and drop files from finder to any other application, not just three folders, but three desktops away. It might not be OK or comfortable for you (which I understand), but writing with laser-cut assumptions and prejudice doesn't help.
> I just checked, it's always greyed out on my finder. Who knows why, it's probably intuitive.
If you're in list view, you can always click column headers, just like a particular Redmond OS allows to do. Also there's a sort by menu, which is operational in all views as I just checked. I think again a particular Redmond OS also calls this strange and magical ordering process the same.
macOS works differently, and it goes against some conventions on other OSes, I know. However, I don't get agitated by this, because how it's evolved and it's consistent in its own world. I actually like how it doesn't imitate anything else. It's same for Linux. Again backwards in some parts, but consistent in its universe of things.
The funny thing is, I booted my Windows disk this weekend for steam stuff and for keeping the OS up to date, and a lot of things felt backwards. However, this is again consistent in Windows universe and it's OK.
Again, I want to reiterate that, there's no one-and-only-one correct way to do things. We need to embrace this differences. This is what moves UI/UX research forward. I personally don't whine. Just adapt and love how quirky a UI is. If it's that broken, I patch it, or just submit bug reports.
No, I mentioned old UNIXen, Linux, and other OSes on my other comments. I do not bring them to table since Linux and other UNIXen Desktop Environments are much more flexible and can be customized to much greater extent, so if something feels wrong, it can be modified easily.
I put Windows vs. macOS because they're arguably the most popular consumer OSes on the market right now. Personally I don't use Windows unless I want to play some games (which happens twice a year at most) or need to manage my parents' computers.
I probably came accross as a macOS fanboy, but I'm actually not (honestly sorry about that). I just like the philosophy behind it and how fast and efficiently can work on that. I can work as efficiently on Linux too (and it's my primary OS on my workstations for ~20 years or so).
The thing I don't agree is labeling of any system of being incapable of something while it's certainly capable but this capability is built with a different design/philosophy and works somewhat differently. If these comments were about Windows, I'd be defending it and its heritage. If it was about Linux, I would certainly do the same with the same enthusiasm.
At the end of the day, it's not fanboyism about and OS, but a rather sympathy for the machine. Understanding how its innards work with as a result of different thinking and how one needs to be flexible and needs to look a little differently to the matter at hand, which is a very useful trait to have.
I love Apple products and to be honest I generally like macOS too but these responses are ridiculous.
And yes you can cut. Cmd-C, Cmd-Opt-V.
And yes, you can sort and align. Just go to the View menu.
And yes, there's a way to go the parent folder. SEVERAL:
- Go -> Enclosing Folder
- Cmd-Up
- Right click on the window title and choose any enclosing folder from the tree
- Show the Path Bar and double click any enclosing folder from the tree
I don't think you've ever actually used a Mac.
For the last 2 years I've used a Mac professionally and personally. I switched from Windows because lots of things are better. Finder is not one of them. And your answers should give you a hint why it sucks.
An empty file is a file that is empty, with the name and extension I chose on the moment I need it.
>And yes you can cut. Cmd-C, Cmd-Opt-V.
With the wrong keyboard shortcut, the correct one universally being Cmd-X.
>And yes, there's a way to go the parent folder. SEVERAL: > >- Go -> Enclosing Folder > >- Cmd-Up > >- Right click on the window title and choose any enclosing folder from the tree > >- Show the Path Bar and double click any enclosing folder from the tree
Several ways, none being the correct one. Nice. I know Apple likes hard to discover shortcuts but this is ridiculous.
I think there's no right or wrongs in keyboard shortcuts, but there are traditions. Both Windows and macOS has their distinct histories and traditions with inspirations from each other. I think it's equally wrong to point a finger to a Windows machine and shout "Why you don't have a command key, you inferior OS-Wannabe?"
Some machines work different from each other. Sun and other Unixen had super, hyper and meta layers on their keyboards with hundreds or more shortcuts. They weren't wrong either, just different, and IMHO cool.
> Several ways, none being the correct one...
Again, if we're going to throw stones, I can name a lot of shortcomings in Windows from file names to other small/backward stuff, but it'd be equally wrong. They are just different systems and have different choices.
> I know Apple likes hard to discover shortcuts but this is ridiculous.
Just open the help menu of an app and write to command you want to find. It'll show it on the menu. Pressing enter will directly run that action.
Well actually I think the control/option/command paradigm makes more sense than ctrl/alt/super, so yeah, I'd love this being copied by Microsoft. It's harder than just supporting Cmd-X in the Finder though. Adding Cmd-X to Finder is just a net gain, it doesn't even require deprecating or breaking anything. It just brings a standard to an app that should support it.
I think no matter what you do here, you have a problem. When you press ctrl-x on a file in Windows explorer; you're not really cutting it; nothing happens til you paste! (Unlike using cut anywhere else).
Both Windows and MacOS end up with a bit of a strained metaphor here; I don't think it's at all obvious which way is _correct_.
From a UX perspective the answer is pretty clear. Copy/Cut/Paste is the winning paradigm, which empirically makes it the correct way.
Someone who had never used Windows might reasonably expect, on finding 'cutting' a file did something, that if they never pasted the file would just be deleted, because that's how cut and past normally works.
Furthermore, you can cut once and paste to several places, with predictable semantics identical to every other implementation of cut+paste (though performance of the first paste will be different from subsequent ones).
Edit: I was entirely wrong about the second part, which does undermine my point considerably.
And what is the "correct" way to go up a folder? What would be easier or more discoverable than Go -> Enclosing Folder?
In Windows, it's Copy or Cut -> Paste. I don't mind this change from Windows. Actually, I slightly prefer the Mac version, because I can change my mind on what operation I want to do. Windows front loads the choice, and I have to do it again if I decide I don't want to copy or cut anymore.
As for folder nav/manipulation, I find Finder to make much greater sense, whereas Explorer was just, this makes sense because it's always been this way (don't get me wrong, Finder has its shortcomings in other areas, although File Preview [space bar] is pretty awesome).
Finder: Generally speaking, arrows do everything.
* Movement within folder: up/down arrow keys
* Move out or into a directory / into a file or app AKA open it: cmd up/down
* Expand/contract a folder: left/right arrow keys
* Rename a file/folder: Enter
Explorer:
* Movement within a folder: up/down arrow keys
* Move into a directory / open a file: Enter
* Move out of a directory: alt up
* Expand/contract a folder: left/right
* Rename a file / folder: F2
That's not just Windows, it is the way the copy/paste model works absolutely everywhere outside Mac's Finder. And there is a clear reason why it makes sense, and why the Finder way is just bad UX: the decision about what happens in location X should always be done when you are in location X.
So, if you navigate into a folder and select a file that you want somewhere else, you are currently in the best position to decide whether you want the file to stay here as well (copy) or no (cut). Then, you can go somewhere else and just add the file in that location (paste). Furthermore, on Windows you can paste the file to several places, with predictable semantics: the file will be copied to each of those places (though performance of this operation may be suprising).
I can't even begin to imagine on Mac if you copy a file the Cmd+opt+v it to multiple places. Does it move it around, deleting it from the previous place where you pressed cmd-opt-v???
Edit: I was entirely wrong about the part about copying to multiple places, which does undermine my point considerably.
Hmm, the first part isn't convincing. To me that sounds like "everyone else is doing it" and not much different than arguing between left side vs right side driving, when there could be a third way, like teleportation. Not saying Finder is quite that much of a shift, but Finder's method does have semantical differences, and not just "hey we're cmd+n/m for cut/copy".
As for the second part, I think that's an intriguing argument, but "bad UX" seems like a stretch. If it were truly always decided in location X, would you have to return to location X to cancel your copy/cut? No, because that would be far too strict. It also depends on what your mental model is of what has been decided at location X.
On macOS: I have decided I want to manipulate the data in this file at location X. I can decide to copy or move it later at location Y.
On Windows: I have decided I want to cut XOR copy this file at location X. I can decide location Y later.
I personally like the ability to chain my decisions after. Based on your edit, I guess you've already discovered, but yes on macOS, you can issue a copy command once, then duplicate it and/or move it as many times as you want, to multiple places, even if you choose a move command first. Only location X's copy is altered if doing a move.
I'm not even sure if that would be possible on Windows without going back and forth between location X and Y to switch between copy and cut (my wintel machine is down at the moment).
3 years of using a Mac now, I would never have figured this out on my own.
IMHO stupid to put the most common operation on a file behind a meta key.
The ratio of how often I rename a file (rarely) vs use a file (often) doesn't come out in favor of this choice.
That said I realize the decision was probably made long long ago and now Apple is just stuck with it.
Still though.
Maybe after another few years I'll figure out the hot key to change between the side pane and the main file list.
(yes I could just look it up, but I do most of my work in terminal and I try to avoid Finder as much as I can, I really dislike using it)
https://www.unix.com/man-page/OSX/1/ditto/
You don't need cut for files, you either want to duplicate the file or move it. For moving you copy it (cmd-c) and then move with cmd-opt-v.
Cut doesn't really make sense for files. With text you cut out the text into a clipboard. Where does the file go when you cut it? Nowhere. There is no place where you can see that you had already cut a file but it's waiting for you to make a mistake and move it somewhere by accident.
Mac has a better duplicate/move UX paradigm and more appropriate for files & folders.
Even with a right click after copying a file, there's no "Move" option. Your explanation makes sense but doesn't really seem supported with Finder's UX since the "Move" terminology doesn't exist anywhere
> How does one discover Cmd-Opt-V?
Keyboard shortcuts are not usually meant to be "discovered" (how do you discover ctrl+x?). You can learn and memorize them. Although, there is a common theme with the option/alt modifier on the mac.
[1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/keyboard-shortcuts...
Seems pretty similar to apple, you have to know that pressing Alt shows additional information.
Of course they are, don't be silly. Even in Finder, the "Édition" menu (I don't know how it's called in english) lists the keyboard shortcuts next to their names (copy, paste...). When you don't select anything, it even shows "Cut (Cmd+X)" grayed out! It just disappears when yous elect a file/folder
Navigating to the parent folder isn’t exclusive to a keyboard shortcut (⌘↑). It’s also accessible from the menu bar (Go → Enclosing Folder).
In regards to consistency, though I know this isn't exactly what you meant, I just booted a virtual machine with System 6 (released in 1988) and Command-Up was the same key command to open the parent folder. :)
(Sure, under the hood nothing different happens at the beginning, but semantically I think Windows makes sense here)
That is the universal way copy/cut&paste work, everywhere outside the Mac Finder.
- There's no (?) way to keep everything consistently sorted and aligned Need more info here, but I dont notice a problem with sorting by name type modified or any other column header just like windows explorer?
CMD+C then CMD+ALT+V
I think of it not as copy-paste vs cut-paste but mark-copy vs mark-move.
It makes it consistent with drag and drop where alt is the modifier for copy vs move (the default depending on whether it's same disk vs another one)
Cmd-opt-V will move the previously copied folder/file. I find this behavior superior to having to decide whether to cut/copy a file to select it. Instead, you choose the operation when it is time to actually move or copy. You can also copy a file to multiple locations in combination with a move.
Cmd-up moves to the parent folder.
You have lots of sort and aligning options that are accessible in keyboard shortcuts. Column browser doesn’t have a good windows equivalent for example. Alt or double clicking the bottom bar adjusts the width of all panes or auto adjusts the selected one. So I’m never in a situation where some file name is cut off even in very deep hierarchies.
One of the problems addressing some of the issues you raised Is that you are not really explaining what you want to do. All you do is complain why Mac doesn’t work exactly like windows. Instead you should figure out what you want to do and explore and learn how that is accomplished on a Mac.
If I'm not accustomed to macOS after using it exclusively for more than 2 years, that shows where it sucks. There's plenty of things that I love on macOS: Spotlight, three-finger moves, even the weird fullscreen mode because it works so well with the pad. But the finder just sucks. That's it. It's not the end of the world and doesn't make macOS crappy. It's just a bad app.
(or as others have already said, Command-UpArrow to open the parent folder)
Depends on what you mean by easy. There's 2 (two) things you need to do to make this easier:
1. Enable New Terminal Tab at Folder service in Finder (goto Finder/Services/Services Preferences.../Files and Folders).
2. Make sure the Path Bar is visible in Finder (it's on the View Menu)
Now right-click the path in the Path Bar where you want to create the folder, select and click the New Terminal Tab at Folder and then touch whatever empty file you want created. Close the terminal window/tab.
Done!
I rarely need to create a new, empty file - but when I do this is how I do it!
I use a nice little app called New File Menu to do that. It supports a bunch of defaults & whatever other templates you want to create. $2 on the Mac App Store. I’m just a happy user.
App Store link: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/new-file-menu/id1064959555?ls=...
Website: https://langui.net/new-file-menu/
Microsoft needs to stop fucking with working UIs. Metro (or whatever they call it now) is a worthless eyesore full of ads and distracting rotating, flipping, bouncing UI elements. Get out of my face and let me do my work.
Clicking Finder will open a new Finder window if none was created thus far, or bring up a minimized window.
>Don't even get me started on the sort options. What kind of file manager applies a Sort view to every single directory, instead of the one you actually set the Sort view to?
Not sure what you mean. If I click to select a sort view, it's applied to the directory I'm looking at.
This would be an example of the 10% of the UI which isn't identical.
One of the fundamental differences between macOS and Windows is the menu bar. There's only one at a time, and it belongs to the program which has the focus. A corollary of this is that you don't need a window to have a program.
It's not just Finder, most macOS programs are perfectly happy having no window open.
I've been on OS X since 2003, and it took me a second to figure out what you were talking about here, because if I don't see the window I expect to see, my eyes immediately flick to the upper-left corner. If I see what I expect to see, I've probably already typed Cmd-N or Cmd-O, depending.
There's a lot to complain about with Finder; my personal peeve is that I want two-finger-swipe-right to go back one directory, like the back button in browsers. But this particular behavior is just macOS working the way that it does. If you close all open windows in Preview and quit, then start it again, it will do the same thing.
If I have some document editor open, and I close all the documents, what should happen?
Should it quit? Well if I wanted to quit, I would have done so.
Should it display some blank pane? Why? To let me know it's still running? The menu bar does that!
I say it should close that last window, and then I can open up another one and keep working.
In other words, I want to have a "menubar-only" app every time I'm done with all the windows I had open, and intend to open more. This happens frequently enough that I'm glad macOS works the way it does.
If you close all the tabs in a browser window, should it close the window or display a new tab page? Or just do nothing but show an empty tab bar and a blank window pane? That seems like the worst possible solution, because it always requires more clicks to do whatever you were intending to do. At least closing the window or opening a new tab will save you some clicks 50% of the time.
If I close all the tabs in a browser window, the window should disappear, yes. If I close all the windows, the browser should stay open, so I can start another window if I want to.
That's the whole point of this user affordance, there's a difference between closing the last window and closing the browser! If I want to close a whole window at once, that's Shift-Cmd-W, Cmd-W closes just one tab, and this works for any tabbed window on any native Mac app.
No amount of Cmd-W will quit the application, and Cmd-Q will always quit the application, maybe prompting and maybe not. They're unrelated commands, especially since most applications will save your windows and that's most often what I want to have happen.
Should whether an application is running or not be a concern to you? Why would you ever want to actually quit an application?
Granted, I understand that in reality the app might be misbehaving, hogging resources and whatnot and that the underlying OS isn't perfect and we should absolutely have control over how our hardware is utilized, but from a UX PoV I think the notion of a running process isn't of interest to me unless I am developing software.
If I close a window, I just want to get it out of my way. I only leave things running as a workaround to the possible slow cold start the program may present.
same reason why I want the parts of my house that I rarely go to to be tidy ?
I find OSX to be generally pretty logical and easy to understand, but certainly no more _intuitive_ than something like Windows. Another way of saying this: if I took someone who didn't know how to use a desktop OS, I wouldn't be any more confident sitting them down in front of a Mac.
They should be consistent, discoverable, and customizable.
I give macOS full marks for consistency, and a passing grade for customizable, but it's hardly discoverable! I read these kinds of HN posts because of all the little tips and tricks I find.
Operating systems used to come with a thick manual, and you could buy an even thicker "missing manual" book at the local bookstore. macOS could use one of those.
I think that's what 'intuitive' means, practically, in this context.
Of course, physical things are losing buttons. I guess kids will refer to things as 'tap the tappy spot' or some such.
But then there are core features like "a file icon on a document window can be dragged exactly like a file icon in the finder" that you can use macOS for years and never find. That's before they started hiding the file icons in Big Sur!
macOS is packed with little things like that.
I think it's fine that they hid it, since even before, the things you can do with it (dragging, cmd/ctrl-clicking) were already hidden.
The only old functionality that is lost with Big Sur is that you could glance at the icon to see if there are unsaved changes (if so, the icon would be dimmed). But you can still tell by looking for the dot in the red close button.
One thing that's killer for me in MacOS vs Windows, regarding consistency, is text fields. They always behave the same (except, of course, for weird apps, say ms office). CMD+Backspace will delete a whole word even in password fields or system settings, etc. This is always hit or miss in Windows. I know it doesn't work for passwords. In Windows explorer it works... sometimes. It works in the address bar, but not in the preferences or when renaming a file.
why ?
I find the "app-less desktop" of Windows and all the Linux DE's I've tried (i.e. the big ones) far more weird and infuriating. It's easy to lose context of what app is focused, since a slight dimming of buttons isn't quite as obvious as I'd like. Reading the word of the app in the menu bar, even if it's just through my peripheral vision, makes the focus behavior far more obvious.
And an "app-less desktop" more or less necessitates that you now dedicate an entire meta/super/Windows/whatever key to the window manager, which is just such a waste of keyboard real estate, as well as a driver for key command inconsistency. In macOS, Cmd+N will (nearly) always make a new window for the app that you're in; Cmd+W will close it; Cmd+Q will quit it. In Windows, Cmd+N works for everything, but to make my first file explorer window, I have to hit Windows+E. And to quit an app, it's...Alt+F4, for some reason?
The trickle-down effects of this design are endless -- I've just laid out the basics of the basics here.
The core difference is that macOS is (originally) document-oriented. You could care less if an app is opened or not, window == document, whereas on Windows, window == program.
Each progressively grew into the direction of the other (e.g Finder progressively losing spatial features and Explorer gaining them, MDI interfaces on macOS vs the win7 taskbar being actually more of a Dock...)
I have used Windows setups with as many as 50 screens (command and control center). Having each application exist within its own window with all relevant menus in that window is, by far, a superior approach in these settings.
Even with three large monitors, using a mouse to fly across that screen space to reach a menu is just a pain. Imagine a system consisting of 25 x 4 screens. It would be a nightmare.
Shortcuts? Someone else said MacOS lacks discoverability. It’s true. Tooltips are almost nowhere to be found and lots of applications have no shortcuts. I have watched non-expert users in fear of clicking a button because they have no clue what it does.
The single menu and single mouse button idea worked well on an old Mac with a single 9 in screen. It works fine on laptops. The minute the display grows in size and multiple displays are used the approach breaks down very quickly.
If you own a multi-monitor Mac setup (we have several) and have enabled the menu bar on all screens, you already understand how broken that concept has become. If it was not you would only have one menu bar with your three large screens.
The only occasional pain point I encounter is when apps like Zoom automatically switch to "full screen mode".
There's also the option in Mission Control for "When switching to an application, switch to a Space with open windows for the application". If that feature is turned off, then you could, for example, have Chrome on _every_ desktop. Then it's just a matter of Cmd+tab to Chrome, and Cmd+n to open a new window on whichever display/desktop has the current focus.
For window management, I've found BetterSnapTool to be essential. It provides the typical window snapping from Windows. Better yet, you can setup keyboard shortcuts to quickly snap a window to the left side, right side, maximize, or move it to the next monitor. The shortcuts I use mimic Vim bindings, so it's easy to remember [1].
With caps locks remapped to Control in the Keyboard preferences, moving and re-sizing "windows" across multiple displays is fast & easy.
But I'm probably missing something with your particular use-case.
[0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/bettersnaptool/id417375580?mt=... [1] https://imgur.com/a/YUufemN
What's interesting is that Apple explicitly chose to ignore what I will go-ahead and call the de-facto standard established across pretty much every desktop GUI by a range of vendors. I have worked on Solaris, Irix, IBM OS2, Amiga OS (owned an original machine signed by the development team), Linux, Windows and MacOS. The odd duck is anything Apple made.
No reason for it whatsoever. Proof? Billions of non-engineers around the world do not seem to have any issues whatsoever operating a Windows machine, which inherits from all of the standards I mentioned above.
The gist of the thread was to somehow characterize Macs as easier and intuitive to use. That simply isn't and has not been the case for a very long time. Expert users, engineers, coders cannot be the test subjects for this evaluation. You just said that a tool you use is easy to remember because the shortcuts mimic VIM bindings. That is beyond foreign to average or below-average users like my mother, father, uncle, the local doctor, teacher, restaurant employee, etc.
No issues with the average user running MacOS on a single small screen. The abstraction works well there. The problems start once you expand beyond that.
I was recently involved in a display characterization project where we had somewhere around eight 4K+ displays attached to a PC. We also evaluated Apple's Pro Display XDR connected as the second display on an Apple laptop (I forget which one).
Using the PC (running Windows) to address every display, run calibration tools on each one and run custom characterization code was an absolute breeze. Doing the same with the Apple XDR was an ordeal. And, to make things worse, using the touchpad to navigate across the entire canvas was just horrific.
I do like Macs. I just don't think they live up to the hype. Easy and cool to use for unsophisticated users on a single screen up to a point. The problem with not making users learn anything is that they will always remain naive users.
Imagine if everyone was forced to use a GUI text editor with simple controls and you did not have the option to use VIM. That's the difference. One assumes the user is an idiot. The other considers the idea that users can actually do more than point and click with a single button on a single menu bar.
Not trying to be nasty at all. I just think Apple takes things to an undesirable extreme at times. They carry this through to the iPhone, where you now have such overloading on controls that nobody knows what they do. I lost track, I think we got up to triple-clicking the home button? And no camera shutter button (no, the volume button isn't a good solution, as the many pictures of my left foot can attest).
Anyhow, good technology. I just don't agree with the choices they seem to make again and again.
The Mac had a functioning UI in the 1980s before the “defacto standards” appeared (I believe would be in the 1990s) would that explain some of the discrepancies?
No problem with that at all. Being opinionated is fine. No issues there.
One way to look at it is that Apple, as a computer company, was a failure. They were on the edge of becoming insolvent. In fact, most Apple users don't know that Microsoft/Bill Gates rescued Apple from meeting an unsightly end by investing $150 million (maybe more, I don't remember) into the company. This would be equivalent to a billion dollar+ investment today.
What saved Apple was the iPhone. Plain and simple. The computer portion of their business was crashing and burning. Note that I am not ascribing this impending doom to the choices made for the GUI at all. Just reviewing some history.
Sometimes being very different is cool, and sometimes it isn't.
Let's look at it from a very different frame of reference. All browsers today work and feel about the same to a casual user --the general public. If someone insisted on delivering one that behaved and looked very different from the standards developed over time, they would not find a great deal of adoption. Microsoft did the right thing in dropping their failed browser and adopting Chromium. That is an example of a good decision made based on how standards evolved outside of their own efforts. Late, sure, but they were opinionated about browsers and eventually understood they were wrong.
That's what Macs felt like to the rest of the world. Weird. Perhaps unnecessarily weird. As the world was getting used to having a capable computer on every desk, Apple, in my opinion, continued to shoot itself in the foot by not listening to a user base 10x to 100x the size of their at all.
You can do that, of course, but when your company ends-up at the edge of failure and you have to be rescued by your competitor...maybe it's time to rethink your approach.
Apple insisted on silly things, like having a single mouse button and, yes, a single menu bar. As I said before, the single menu bar makes sense for some single small screen use-cases, but it quickly falls apart once you go big and multiple screens. There's also the effect of having multiple windows belonging to multiple applications strewn about your screen or screens with no clear association to a single application. I remember the early days of this. It was a mess. The difference between running something like Photoshop on Windows vs. a Mac, was night and day. One was clean and organized. The other was a mess of windows everywhere. What I am using for this use-case evaluation was the reaction of my daughter who had been learning tools such as GIMP and Photoshop on a PC and then saw how Photoshop ran on a Mac. She wanted nothing to do with it.
Anyhow, I am not here to downgrade Apple computers. They are fine. Very usable. Lots of people love them and, in my opinion, pay ridiculous amounts of money for them. All I am saying is that Apple could have made an effort to still be opinionated while giving users the choices they were already making elsewhere. That's an important point. The PC world has been an amazing experiment from day one. For the most part choices were made by users. There have been massive failures in that universe. Users voted with their purchases every step of the way. And that's how we got where we are. Were it not for Microsoft/Bill Gates and, later, the iPhone, it is quite possible the Mac would have died long ago. This was a technology imposed on users from above. I think I can say it is very rare to see that kind of thing survive in the long term. I still remember when Apple decided to move away from the PowerPC platform and killed off every customer's investment in software. In the PC world, like it or not, the issue of compatibility across tr...
I typed in wrong window more times than I would like to admit because of this stupid singe menu bar design.
And we don't want "OS focus" to follow the mouse! That would pop windows to the front, change the menu bar, and other unfortunate consequences: if I were mousing up toward the menu and accidentally crossed another window, I'd get the wrong menu.
What we want is for keyboard focus to also follow the mouse, and there's not actually any inherent reason why this can't happen. It's just that they're tightly coupled by the implementation, to the point where an extension can't un-couple them.
The lack of (keyboard) focus-follows-mouse is the big fly in my macOS ointment, it annoys me whenever I'm on my widescreen, which is at least half of the time. I do think it would be possible to implement a usable f-f-m which still worked the way macOS does with respect to menus, which windows get priority, and so on.
It would require uncoupling some things under the hood, which would probably affect the API in an incompatible way, so I don't expect to ever see it happen unfortunately.
This is, particularly for a novice or intermediate user IMO quite intimidating. It means there is some learnt behavior + keyboard command required to "see anything" and work with the program. If I'm using my trackpad/mouse trying to work out after I start a program why I can't see anything like I've seen new Mac users do for some time it isn't great. Because there is no window its easy to click anywhere else in my search for my "missing program" and immediately lose the "menu bar" that allows you to (Cmd-N) or discover the ability to do that. It's almost like the app never booted up.
Sure you can learn behavior and work around it as I and you have had to do, but if the menu bar behavior changes per window focus anyway I don't see the difference than Windows with menu bar on the window other than "its the Mac way".
(I don't think it's a good thing to keep applications running when the last window is closed, but that's a different argument)
spacebar to preview.
select multiple items to preview them all.
As to ease of use...
MacOS is not easier to learn - it has just as many quirks as windows, except in different places.
However, I have found it much more consistent than any other desktop. The menubar is one example - always there in the same place, with all the File, Edit, etc menus as expected. Keys are consistent (mostly)
consistency is the key.
It's a holdover from two different earlier eras.
First, you have everything up to about 1998, which covers MacOS Classic through Mac OS 8, and Windows up through Win98. At the beginning of this period, when "PC" meant MS-DOS, the usability difference was obviously stark. But even in GUI era of PCs, System 7 compared favorably with Windows 3.1, and Mac OS 8 compared favorably with Windows 95.
Then Windows 98 and Mac OS 9 came out, and I'd say that things at least evened up. All else being equal, OS 9's GUI was still simpler and more intuitive, to my taste, but all else was not equal. Windows 9x had memory protection and pre-emptive multitasking, and Mac OS Classic didn't, and there were issues with system extensions and stability in Mac OS that I personally felt were more troublesome than Windows's famous BSOD problem during that era. This opinion could be a product of my experience working tech support at the time. BSOD was usually fixed by cursing profusely while rebooting. System extension conflicts were fixed at great physical and emotional cost to the person doing the fixing.
So I'd say Windows was generally easier to use than Macs for a while, until OS X eventually came into its own. It's harder to place a start time on this, but let's say 2002ish, with the release of Jaguar. And then there's been a sort of long slow decline as they clutter up the GUI, while at the same time Microsoft was putting serious work into cleaning things up. I'm not sure if the switch happened during the Windows 7 era or the Windows 10 era, but yeah, I'd definitely say I find Windows easier to use nowadays.
Personally, the main thing keeping me on Macs nowadays is frankly just the touchpad, to which I seem to be addicted.
Perhaps this was changed now? Big Sur does open a new window for me.
That's convergent evolution. The UIs started off very different. MacOS's current set of UI abstractions was mostly enshrined in an era when its competitor was Windows 3.1.
> Why is it that when I click Finder, nothing actually opens?
I was going to give a few justifications for this, but I just tested it, and clicking on the Finder icon in the Dock does open a new Finder window for me. (In Big Sur. This definitely wasn't always the case; I'm not certain when it changed.)
But those justifications, for the long period where it didn't, are still kind of interesting/relevant:
1. the Desktop is a Finder window. IIRC, on some versions of macOS, using a switcher to focus the Finder would — if you don't have any open Finder windows — focus the desktop (insofar as keyboard navigation goes.)
2. You can do useful things with the Finder without any windows open. IIRC, Apple's HIG only recommends creating a new window in response to a click on the app's icon (and or having a Cmd-0 accelerator), if the app is useless without having a window open. But the Finder has a bunch of menu-items in the "Go" menu (with keyboard accelerators) to open windows showing specific locations, or to open dialogs for connecting to networks, etc. It'd be annoying if you wanted to open one of these, but focusing the Finder always opened a default window you had to get rid of first. I personally often focus the Finder and then press Cmd+K to mount an SMB share on my NAS, then immediately close the resulting window, because the point was to get it mounted for command-line use.
The stock file manager in Fedora, Pop!_OS and Ubuntu do this. And it's great, so you don't have to make all your folders the same.
Not sure about the Finder Window though.
IMHO, it's mainly holdover from when Windows was DOS. For a very long time using a Mac was kind of like a religion (they even had explicit evangelists), and many people who used Macs were irrationally attached to the platform. One of the main tenets of the faith was that Macs were much easier to use than PCs (because GUI and no autoexec.bat and IRQ assignment, etc). I think that meme has gotten stuck in popular consciousness, even though Windows has had literally 30+ years to catch up. Also, especially since the OS X era, I think the usability of Macs has stagnated or even regressed in many ways.
Whoever sets the standard behavior of such an important operation as destructive seriously knows nothing about UI.
Disk images were the mac equivalent of a compressed folder, e.g. zip. And I find the "compressedd virtual usb-stick" idea a lot more intuitive than the whole "we cram files into other files and loose all metadata" shenanigans.
Apps used to be simple files in the finest unix tradition. No weird installer that does who knows what, no wizards, no special system files, no uninstaller.
Want to take your app from one computer to another? Just send the file.
App stores, installer, and the whole sandboxing gunk, is a million times more complex and unintuitive.
The author seems to be oblivious to the simplicity of the old ways, and thus suspects some hidden magic going on in loading the disk image.
Loading the disk image doesn't do "something" and then displays an IKEA esque installer window. The window is literally a finder window with hidden borders.
The idea was: "If a user can drag and drop files, they can install apps."
The workflow described is composed of several orthogonal concepts that each on their own are super intuitive, or at least were, when unix philosophy, file system usage and user empowerment were still at the core of Mac Os values.
Still, I think it's not that the Mac is not that intuitive any more, it's that Windows has more or less caught up.
Deleting an app folder on MacOS is no less intuitive than right-clicking an app in windows and choosing Uninstall.
Certainly in most OSs (I think), there is a good chance that more got installed than just a single folder so anyone who isn't exclusively on a Mac is going to think that deleting a folder is asking for trouble.
Here's a question though: What are you right-clicking in Windows that gives you an uninstall option? Windows is so complicated that most of the time it's not even the app itself. You certainly won't get an Uninstall option right-clicking the executable in Program Files, you have to find a magic shortcut somewhere that is keyed up in the registry with the relevant uninstaller package.
It feels strange that doing Command-delete on some apps just moves them to Trash, but other times it triggers a script that deletes it
Windows makes it pretty easy with the one "add or remove programs" section of the control panel.
Except there's no guarantee that uninstallers will remove all ancillary files on Windows either, especially because Windows developers seem to have a habit of just spraying configuration files and serialized state all across the filesystem haphazardly with little concern for organization.
I think as a developer you have to take pains to keep them all in one place, and delete them when uninstalling.
Many people use computers 2-8 hour per day for their whole life. It would be worth of the effort to create secondary consistent UI that takes weeks to learn, even if it would increase productivity just 5%.
Normally people are burning productivity by not learning/knowing what their existing UI provides.
e.g. In windows windows-key+arrow, lets you snap windows to the side of the screen (or minimize, mazimize, shift monitor etc). Now I've absolutely no idea when this feature was introduced - but plenty of people are still reaching for their pointer device to drag stuff about.
It's a nice feature. You don't forget it - but it's bad UX as I swear usage of it only spreads by word-of-mouth. No idea if MS invented it - or it was 'borrowed' from another OS.
- discoverability (you need to discover how to do it)
- consistency (you don't need to discover it again done in other way)
- helpful error messages (e.g. "Chrome not found...")
If you have these three things done, even something ancient like DOS can be usable.
I like my MacBook mainly because of the screen, and a little bit because of the touchpad. Those are both hardware considerations rather than OS.
In terms of using it, I have a terminal on shortcut, which I also do on my backup Linux machine. If I had a Windows as my daily machine I think I'd do the same. In terms of installed apps, all the IDEs are on all platforms, and all chat programs are on all platforms. Just about everything else is in a browser. So it hardly matters too much what you pick.
It wasn't in the start menu like in every other Windows version before and after. No, to do that you needed to swipe from the right side of the screen for some sort of a system sidebar to appear (I believe it was called "charms"). I've used the cmd command I was familiar with for months (shutdown -s -t 0) before finally deciding to consult with a search engine, and oh boy, was I pissed when I found out where it was.
Super glad I never have to touch Windows to do my work now.
Wow, that's just the marketing.
The jargon was outside their understanding, and unless we were physically looking at the phone, we couldn't guess what word in the Appstore meant Download.
And it got worse, the requests/requirement to login with Apple ID on various occasions were frustrating.
And from a tech geek, I had a work IPhone where I struggled to change settings and found annoyances with bugs.
Apple's posture is that the defaults are good for most people. Their settings management is second class in all of their products compared to Windows and (especially) Linux and Android.
I don't have any trouble getting Linux to behave the way I want.
Same with operation systems. For someone accustomed to Windows conventions things like lack of Ctrl-X on Mac for cutting files (so after Ctrl-V they are removed from old location) will be counter-intuitive. For people living in Mac ecosystem this is natural and does not affect their workflow (they are even epic discussions on the topic in the Internet).
- Windows: 74%
- macOS: 16%
- chromeOS: 2%
# NA shares:
- Windows: 63%
- macOS: 26%
- chromeOS: 5%
# Europe shares:
- Windows: 76%
- macOS: 16%
- chromeOS: 1%
# Asia shares:
- Windows: 80%
- macOS: 8%
- chromeOS: 0%
--
So if we only take NA + EU
- Windows 69%
- macOS 21%
That's not bad at all
Source: https://gs.statcounter.com/
EDIT:
Asia doesn't make lot of sense, they are more of a smartphone oriented market than desktop
Asia:
https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mob...
What's interesting, smartphones became the most used type of device last year
Worldwide:
https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mob...
Today:
Smartphone: 54%
Desktop: 42%
And if we compare Windows vs iOS in NA:
- Windows: 31%
- iOS: 27%
- macOS: 13%
So yeah, it doesn't look good for windows and microsoft
This is in part because of the simple WIMP [0] affordance, some humane design choices such as smiling faces and long filenames, and because a few applications were pre-eminent in their categories. Adobe Photoshop, for example. What people did with Apple computers, they knew how to do and what to expect.
The reputation for ease of use persisted for a long time after it became less of a differentiating characteristic. "Reputation" is sometimes perpetuated by marketing, not by a consensus of thoughtful users.
An OS such a ChromeOS can make a claim to "ease of use" by limiting the user's ability to cause damage.
These days and for some time, I use Linux (Debian), Android, ChromeOS, and M-Windows in that order of frequency. Linux gives me all the tools that I want, Android is mobile, ChromeOS is hard-to-break for restricted computing. For M-Windows, the typical driver requirements make it necessary.
[0] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMP_(computing)
I've yet to use an intuitive machine.
The most intuitive thing is the command line ... but you have to learn so much before you can use your machine from the command line ... its not an investment worth making unless you're a developer.
Are you joking? Searching in a windowed app usally brings up a dialog with various search options that can be ticked. Learning options for grep/awk/sed etc. is incredible tedious.
Like most things, there is a difference between intuitive for person A and person B and this is not the same as whether a power user can invest time learning a tool and then become super fast at it. An expert in Grep could probably find something in a file much more quickly than someone in Windows or MacOS but I would argue many people would find windowed apps more intuitive.
Don’t confuse intuitive with easy or familiar.
Yet I had to Google several times to just install a single piece of MacOS software.
The windows exe installer system isn’t perfect but it beats that…
Instead of clicking "next-next-next" as you do on Windows, you have at least 3 competing versions of installing things.
* you have pkg installers (sometimes zipped, sometimes just .pkg files)
* you have those .app bundles that you need to manually move to Application (they are sometimes in a zip and sometimes in a DMG, further complicating things)
* you now also have an app store (that keeps requiring you to enter iCloud password - different from OS password - all the time for some weird reason)
And don't try to even uninstall anything.
* app store apps are uninstalled by ... holding them in Launchpad view, which is never needed anywhere else
* other apps... just are not un-installable, really.
"Just download the windows version"
'OK.. am I x86, x64 or ARM? I think it's Windows 10'
'Do I want the zip, the exe, the MSI or standalone?'
It's almost enough just to tell them to use the MS app store.
Just to test I donwloaded the .dmg for Chrome.
Like A LOT of .dmg based "installers" there is a Chrome application and a link to /Applications, with a nice obvious "arrow" between them.
I've always found this to be pretty self evident that I must put the Chrome app into the Applications folder.
How many times have we found a friend's Mac with 10-20 DMGs mounted?
Back in the 1980s and 90s, the differences between MacOS and Windows were as day and night. (Windows 1 didn't even support overlapping windows. Windows 3 had weird stuff like icons that didn't map to underlying filesystem objects so when you dragged a "file" to the "trash" you weren't actually deleting a file, you were deleting a symbolic representation of the file. Windows put a separate menu bar in every window, unlike MacOS, which was a significant waste of screen real estate back in an age when VGA -- 480x640 pixel -- screens were normal. And Windows font handling was horrendous.)
Circa Windows 95, Microsoft found workarounds for the most obstructive of Apple and Xerox's patents on GUIs. There were still weird differences, though. Mac had pull-down menus, Windows had drop-down. (Today, macOS has drop-down menus because that ship sailed decades ago.)
Anyway, the story of macOS vs. Windows is one of convergent evolution over a period of about 3 decades, and in the meantime, each of those operating systems has been substantially replaced under the hood -- Windows is no longer a graphical shell running on top of DOS, and MacOS is no longer a cooperative-tasking 68000 based system: Windows has VMS heritage rather than DOS, and Mac has BSD UNIX heritage rather than MacOS.
TLDR: in the age of the dinosaurs (1984-94) Macs clearly were easier to learn and use than Windows. Today, not so much.