ITT: We unleash a diatribe against technology-related things that drive us mad.
I'll start:
>Mac OS X
>Press x to close program
>Program still runs
>not command+q
i mean osx has a different paradigm carrying over from classic mac os days
and chrome does this on all OS
its press x to close window, there is still a process running winbaby
>>54090520
Yes I understand that but WHAT is the point. Why would I want the program to run in the background?
I mean let's just look at some typical programs
>Word
>Safari
>Steam
>literally everything else
There is no reason to run these in the background without a window. An "X" should mean terminate, finish, end, etc.
>>54090490
>Windows
>Press x to close program
>actually closes
>Skype on Windows
>press x to close program
>...
We had one of these threads already
General consensus was if you didn't know the difference between closing a window and a program you should probably, just maybe consider learning that
>>54090559
>press X to close program
>program runs
>press + to fullscreen
>window barely moves
>press - to minimise
>moves window to bottom of screen
>like i didn't need my privacy thanks
>>54090559
>Winbaby
I hope you feel happy with your trash-tier overpriced $3000 Facebook machine that you refer to as a computer. I bet your ancestors are proud of you.
>be hardware manufacturer
>create hardware
>only make driver for windows
>>54090592
NO
Apple should conform to logic for once in its miserable existence.
>>54090595
>I hope your ancestors are proud of you
I don't know about his ancestors, but I'm sure NSA is.
>>54090617
What logic? Trying to close a window closes the program?
That's like saying "instead of erasing the contents on this page, let's just fucking rip it off"
>Windows
>Try to fix the disfunctional font rendering
>Doesn't do dick for any "apps"
>>54090669
> let's just fucking rip it off"
Now it all makes sense. You people literally think that a computer screen is a piece of paper.
>>54090614
why should I make drivers for linux when someone else will surely make them and probably do a much better job of it?
also why bother with linux drivers when everyone hates proprietary blobs anyway
>>54090744
Because they won't fucking work with Steam.
>>54090490
>closing a window and terminating an application is the same thing
>>54090560
>Word
Word is made using Windows semantics
As for the rest
>safari
I want it to continue downloads when I close the browser window
I want mail to notify my about new emails even though I closed my window
>steam
Steam is not an Apple app and is made using Windows semantics, see Word
>>54090560
You mean close steam permanently like you do on windows by pressing the X-- oh wait
I mean maybe you don't use the steam community features but plenty of people have that shit on the background so they can talk to their favorite NEETs
Really I can see this as a problem on a really shitty computer but I can only think of Word as being a valid choice for a program that wouldn't benefit much from running on the background.
>proprietary software with DRM and spyware
>people shill it for free even if the corporation that made it paid lots of money for marketing already
>you need $(MS Office/Photoshop/SAP/Sharepoint/Exchange) do do real work!
>because alternative programs have the buttons somewhere else
>>54090560
Go to settings and disable it retard.
>>54090490
>that post
>a diatribe
Are you retarded?
>>54090800
Actually Steam has a lot of background stuff like downloads, chat, updates and other stuff so it technically follows standard semantics.
>>54090617
The benefit of keeping the program open in the background comes with really large programs such as Illustrator and Photoshop, where opening them takes a full minute on the high-tier mac models. Microsoft programs can do the same if they're designed to do so, with the added benefit of hiding themselves from the user in the bottom right. Of course in the near future all computers will be able to load these giant programs within a few seconds, which will nearly eliminate the need for the current paradigm.
>>54090490
>waah the close window button closes the window
>>54090490
>>Mac OS X
>>Press x to close program
>>Program still runs
You kill the window, not the underlying process.
> For an image viewer app for example, you want to keep the process in RAM and not reload the program from disk every time you open an image.
>>54095478
>you want to keep the process in RAM and not reload the program from disk every time you open an image.
No modern OS does that any more. The way OS X works nowadays is really no different than Windows, with Superfetch and disk caches; "inactive" programs are suspended and pushed to swap as necessary. The only difference is Windows does that transparently.
Apple themselves agree that the visual indicator for "running" programs makes no sense anymore, and in fact removed it in Lion (but brought it back due to outcry). Also notice how more and more Apple software abandons this paradigm.
OS X
You close all app windows, resources are kept in ram until they're needed elsewhere. The process is suspended. You get a visual indicator that means fuckall.
Windows
You close a program, resources are kept in ram until they're needed elsewhere. It's all happening in the background.
This is how all modern VMS operating systems work, and the reason Apple is slowly moving away from the MDI philosophy. Try opening multiple calculator windows at once - you can't. Likewise with most bundled software. They turned it into a huge mess.
![closebuttonleftsidewindows7[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/EyAn7iS.jpg "closebuttonleftsidewindows7[1].jpg")
The issue is just that it doesn't perform the same function across every application.
I press X on one program, it closes. On another? It minimizes it.
Really X should have a universal function to end a program completely. Minimize should have the option to be put in your taskbar or your tray
>>54097315
Absolutely.
Say, I have a Transmission window with active downloads. If I close this window, how do I know if the transfers will stop or not? And if they don't, how is that different from minimise?
Same thing on Windows with close-as-minimize to tray. As much as I dislike the UWP platform, I'm glad it's moving away from this crap.
>>54090560
im pretty sure its a useability thing apple does where the user can recover from a mistake.
>>54090574
>skype
>>54090490
>We unleash a diatribe against technology-related things that drive us mad.
People who overly concern themselves with what other people use, spend their money on or do with their free time.
Grow up.
That's exactly the behavior I actually want in MS Outlook, rather than my fucking torrent client, but oh well...
>>54093662
Wut... It takes me 5-10 seconds on my windows pc to open photoshop
>>54090520
Command+q doesn't work on every window, which makes it ten times more annoying that OPs problem.
>Program/website fetches control of the scroll wheel
>It changes your volume
>>54097979
Lol wat.
Yes it does. It's a system hot key. Try using the system before shit posting.
>>54098063
I have one right next to me, and I work as support at a school where 90% of the students have Macs. I've gone from being disinterested in Macs to straight up disliking the user experience.
I'll give you an example.
Open System Settings
Go to Printers and Scanners
Click the + and Add a local printer
Try closing the following popup using a hotkey.
>Windows
>Windows-clone linux WMs
>process killed with window or maybe it minimizes or maybe it goes into a special fucking snowflake icon that functions differently from the rest
>>54096883
It depends on the program, but the glory of it is nothing like the above ever happening until you install non-native shit from linux land, where everyone copies the worst of windows
If I wanted to still use a program I would open the fucking program
>hurr durr muh x should act as a kill switch
The universal function of the X button is to close the window it is attached to. It might subsequently mean the rest of the program terminates if the only thing to keep it running was the GUI loop. However, if the program has a loop besides the one of the gui, it will keep running in the background. It is up to the programmer to decide how that loop should be terminated. Windows adheres to this idea properly. In OS X, it acts mostly like a minimize button but without keeping the window active in a taskbar/window list. That's just how OS X does it. Even though I hate it, it isn't a wrong way of doing things, just a different one.
>>54098143
It's canfusing way of doing things. It's especially jarring because the rest of the OS is so consistent.
To add to the confusion, some programs don't even need to be running. You can receive iMessages without Messages.app open, but you need Mail.app to receive mails, even if you use iCloud. I know why that is (APNS vs IMAP Idle) but how is that intuitive?
There's already three ways of doing things, and no way to tell which one the program uses without trial and error.
>Not using WIndows 10
>>54098091
>Cmd+Q doesn't close System Preferences when the add a local printer window is open
That's because when you have that window open you're not using System Preferences, you're using a program that doesn't interface with the menubar called AddPrinter.
If you open the window, click in Finder, and click back in the window, you'll notice it says still says Finder instead of System Preferences
>>54099153
>Command+q doesn't work on every window
That was my argument. The anon who replied to me said I was shit posting, so I presented a window that does not close with Command+q.
I don't care about the reason, but the truth is you can't call Cmd+q a universal "close" button when it doesn't close anything you'd want to close.
For the record, Cmd+w would close the AddPrinter window.
This is the UX design praised worldwide.
>>54099180
>Cmd+q a universal "close" button when it doesn't close anything you'd want to close.
So now you're bitching that the close program button is functioning improperly because it closes the program?
>For the record, Cmd+w would close the AddPrinter window.
Yes, because when you close the AddPrinter window there's a 99% chance that you're done with it.
>>54099199
>So now you're bitching that the close program button is functioning improperly because it closes the program?
No, I'm bitching that the X button doesn't terminate the program, and that the "solution" of Cmd+q isn't good enough because it doesn't close everything.
>Yes, because when you close the AddPrinter window there's a 99% chance that you're done with it.
But why isn't it Cmd+q to close that window like it is with anything else?
Why isn't there a single hotkey that simply does "Close this window"?
Depending on the type of window it's either Cmd+q, Cmd+w or Esc.
>close program in lunix
>thing you copied from application before closing it is no longer in clipboard
tf
>>54099216
> I'm bitching that the X button doesn't terminate the program
I just tried it, it does.
> the "solution" of Cmd+q isn't good enough because it doesn't close everything
I tried that too, they both work as expected
>Why isn't there a single hotkey that simply does "Close this window"?
Cmd+w
>>54099261
>I just tried it, it does.
It doesn't. It leaves it suspended in the background. Open Firefox or Chrome and press the X. You'll see it'll leave a small mark below the icon on your launcher, which means it's basically minimized.
>I tried that too, they both work as expected
Not for every window, see my post above with the AddPrinter example.
>Cmd+w
Cmd+w does the same as pressing X, as in it leaves the window suspended. If you're looking for behavior similar to what one would expect from most non-shit applications on Windows or Linux, you're gonna have to get used to using Cmd+q on some windows, and Cmd+w on others.
>>54099290
>It doesn't. It leaves it suspended in the background.
I thought we were talking about the printer program. Yes I know this. This is because that button is the close window button, it's for closing windows.
>>54099290
>Not for every window, see my post above with the AddPrinter example.
Yes, see my explanation for why AddPrinter does this.
>Cmd+w does the same as pressing X
You asked about a universal hotkey for closing windows. Cmd+w does exactly this. You seem to be looking for a close program hotkey, that's Cmd+q
>>54090744
Why would drivers for stupid chink shit be proprietary in the first place?
>>54098091
Cmd+w
And you're 'support'?
