I got a Macbook a couple of years back and, yeah, installing stuff was by far the most "Huh, WTF?" confusing part of the switch to OSX.
I just don't get why you the user have to manually drag them into the application folder. A lot of them even streamline the process and place a shortcut to the app folder inside the installer, it so all you do is literally drag the app icon ONE INCH to the right and let go.
Why?? Why not just make it a prompt and have it be yes or no button.
Why not on first run prompt the user to have it installed to their app folder? Crazy, I know.
Because this model is more effective. apps are for the most part self contained and can run anywhere. for example, if I map my apps folder on my Mac Pro to my Macbook Pro computer I suddenly have ALL the apps of both computers available. For example I have some off the wall unzipper on my mac pro... if I map the apps folder on my laptop then right click on a zip file it gives me the option automatically of using this zip program vice the one on my macbook pro.
I got a Macbook a couple of years back and, yeah, installing stuff was by far the most "Huh, WTF?" confusing part of the switch to OSX.
I just don't get why you the user have to manually drag them into the application folder. A lot of them even streamline the process and place a shortcut to the app folder inside the installer, it so all you do is literally drag the app icon ONE INCH to the right and let go.
Why?? Why not just make it a prompt and have it be yes or no button.
Why not on first run prompt the user to have it installed to their app folder? Crazy, I know.
Because this model is more effective. apps are for the most part self contained and can run anywhere. for example, if I map my apps folder on my Mac Pro to my Macbook Pro computer I suddenly have ALL the apps of both computers available. For example I have some off the wall unzipper on my mac pro... if I map the apps folder on my laptop then right click on a zip file it gives me the option automatically of using this zip program vice the one on my macbook pro.
Yeah I like this model a lot better, that's why whenever I make an application I make sure to do it that way. Real men use text files for configuration data.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I never get why windows programmers don't use both.. a text file that saves the current registry settings, and a prompt that allows you to copy them to registy if they're missing, or just run of the config file itself
Only thing about switching clueless people to mac:
INSTALLING APPS
Go to a mac newbie and i bet they have a shit ton of mounted dmg files and are running the programs from them instead of dropping them to the apps folder.
For some reason apps in a DMG file confuse the shit out of even literate windows users i found out.
my dad was complaining that his mac was getting slow, and i checked it out to discover that he had like fifteen programs open at once, on an old g4 emac
he can't grasp the concept that just because you can't see the program doesn't mean it's not running and that he has to actually use the quit command to get it out of RAM
tell him it's like a car, just because you don't put it on the seat next to you but int the trunk, it doesn't mean the weight is not there
Isn't that an awesome analogy
Only thing about switching clueless people to mac:
INSTALLING APPS
Go to a mac newbie and i bet they have a shit ton of mounted dmg files and are running the programs from them instead of dropping them to the apps folder.
For some reason apps in a DMG file confuse the shit out of even literate windows users i found out.
my dad was complaining that his mac was getting slow, and i checked it out to discover that he had like fifteen programs open at once, on an old g4 emac
he can't grasp the concept that just because you can't see the program doesn't mean it's not running and that he has to actually use the quit command to get it out of RAM
But why does it do this? Is it just a holdover from when loading a program took long enough that it might be better to leave it in RAM?
Yeah it really isn't. The effect you will get from extra weight to your car aren't nearly as prominent as the effects of having 14 programs open at once, with that analogy he may not grasp how serious it is.
Dixon on
0
Options
SmasherStarting to get dizzyRegistered Userregular
Only thing about switching clueless people to mac:
INSTALLING APPS
Go to a mac newbie and i bet they have a shit ton of mounted dmg files and are running the programs from them instead of dropping them to the apps folder.
For some reason apps in a DMG file confuse the shit out of even literate windows users i found out.
my dad was complaining that his mac was getting slow, and i checked it out to discover that he had like fifteen programs open at once, on an old g4 emac
he can't grasp the concept that just because you can't see the program doesn't mean it's not running and that he has to actually use the quit command to get it out of RAM
But why does it do this? Is it just a holdover from when loading a program took long enough that it might be better to leave it in RAM?
The OS X (and all previous Mac OSs for that matter) interface is more focused on applications, whereas the Windows interface is more focused on windows (small w). That's why OS X has the application menu bar on the top of the screen outside any particular window, whereas in Windows it appears in the windows themselves.
Since the application bar in Windows is contained in the windows, once all the windows for an application are closed there is no way to interact with the application until a new window is opened. This means it makes no sense to leave the application open, and so it sensibly automatically quits the application when its last window is closed.
In OS X however the application bar is independent of the application's windows. This allows you to do things like close all the currently open documents in a given application, then create a new document without relaunching the application. To achieve this in Windows I believe you would have to either first open the new window and then close all the other ones, or close the other ones and then relaunch the application from the start menu or the desktop explorer.
It's not the end of the world, but to me at least the Windows way is a bit more of a hassle. Thus leaving the application open can be a small convenience in many cases. The downside of course is that if you're in the habit of closing applications by closing their windows you'll unintentionally leave a bunch of applications open. This usually isn't a problem for people accustomed to OS X, but if you don't understand computers enough to understand the difference between windows and applications or if you're used to Windows and subconsciously expect applications in OS X to behave the same way I can see why it would seem strange.
Yeah it really isn't. The effect you will get from extra weight to your car aren't nearly as prominent as the effects of having 14 programs open at once, with that analogy he may not grasp how serious it is.
Well that certainly would clear up how serious the situation is.
bongi: "Dad, imagine that running programs are like dead bodies in the trunk of your car..."
Dad: "..."
bongi: "What?"
Dad: "I think I'm done with the computer for now..."
I'm in an odd situation. I am in tech support, so my family knows I know about computers and their voodoo. Yet, no one asks me for help. I think they are afraid to ask because I do it all day.:|
The main thing is to make sure you don't seem like you are getting impatient with there ignorance (even if you do want to stab both of your eyes out with a rusty spork). Then they will clam up and then be irritated and then nothing ill get done.
My dad's job is with computers, and he's been working with them since they were first given to the public. He's been writing programs in a variety of different language since the 70s.
So of course he knows more about computers than I do.
so what you're telling me is that you never got to watch any internet porn as a kid.
sucks to be you.
Yes but he probably got the White Book as a birthday present.
Posts
Because this model is more effective. apps are for the most part self contained and can run anywhere. for example, if I map my apps folder on my Mac Pro to my Macbook Pro computer I suddenly have ALL the apps of both computers available. For example I have some off the wall unzipper on my mac pro... if I map the apps folder on my laptop then right click on a zip file it gives me the option automatically of using this zip program vice the one on my macbook pro.
Yeah I like this model a lot better, that's why whenever I make an application I make sure to do it that way. Real men use text files for configuration data.
he can't grasp the concept that just because you can't see the program doesn't mean it's not running and that he has to actually use the quit command to get it out of RAM
Isn't that an awesome analogy
But why does it do this? Is it just a holdover from when loading a program took long enough that it might be better to leave it in RAM?
The OS X (and all previous Mac OSs for that matter) interface is more focused on applications, whereas the Windows interface is more focused on windows (small w). That's why OS X has the application menu bar on the top of the screen outside any particular window, whereas in Windows it appears in the windows themselves.
Since the application bar in Windows is contained in the windows, once all the windows for an application are closed there is no way to interact with the application until a new window is opened. This means it makes no sense to leave the application open, and so it sensibly automatically quits the application when its last window is closed.
In OS X however the application bar is independent of the application's windows. This allows you to do things like close all the currently open documents in a given application, then create a new document without relaunching the application. To achieve this in Windows I believe you would have to either first open the new window and then close all the other ones, or close the other ones and then relaunch the application from the start menu or the desktop explorer.
It's not the end of the world, but to me at least the Windows way is a bit more of a hassle. Thus leaving the application open can be a small convenience in many cases. The downside of course is that if you're in the habit of closing applications by closing their windows you'll unintentionally leave a bunch of applications open. This usually isn't a problem for people accustomed to OS X, but if you don't understand computers enough to understand the difference between windows and applications or if you're used to Windows and subconsciously expect applications in OS X to behave the same way I can see why it would seem strange.
14 people
in your trunk
bongi: "Dad, imagine that running programs are like dead bodies in the trunk of your car..."
Dad: "..."
bongi: "What?"
Dad: "I think I'm done with the computer for now..."
The main thing is to make sure you don't seem like you are getting impatient with there ignorance (even if you do want to stab both of your eyes out with a rusty spork). Then they will clam up and then be irritated and then nothing ill get done.
Yes but he probably got the White Book as a birthday present.