>Close button doesn't close the program
>Except for some cases in which it does
Can someone explain the logic behind this retarded design decision to me?
If I wanted to minimize a window, I would have pressed the minimize button, why have 2 buttons that do the same thing?
Why not at least make in consistent across programs?
>>53771928
It's an OS made for retards. What do you expect? It follows retard logic.
>>53771928
ITT: OP is too retarded to understand anything non Windows related.
>>53771928
It should only exit the program for lightweight utility-type apps. Basically if all the functionality is in one window, and you can't open documents or anything, you can do it that way.
OSX has been getting a little bloat-y, but that is one of the features that has had a pretty low impact on cognitive loading.
>>53771928
>implying the window it's always the whole program
>>53771928
cmd+q problem solved
>>53772005
The windows is never the whole program.
It's the UI.
But the point is why have a minimize button, when close is going to do the same thing?
It closes the window, not the program, what's complicated about this?
>>53772049
It doesn't close it though, it minimizes it.
I was more concerned about maximizing and such, but at least Spectacle exists.
Hell I found that if there's anything you could complain about, you'd probably get a fix through extra software.
>>53771928
its not close button, its hide button
also this >>53772026
>>53772048
It doesn't do the same thing. Minimize puts the window inside the dock (or under the app icon), in it's state as of when it was minimized. Closing the window and opening it back up doesn't recover the state of the last closed window.
>>53772065
No, if it minimized it it would show a thumbnail for it at the dock.
What you're doing is effectively closing the window while not closing the program. Not every program behaves like this of course.
>>53771964
>>53772048
>>53772049
>>53772005
That has nothing to do with familiarity issues. OSX window management is pants-on-head retarded.
One window = one running program instance. It's fucking simple. If your program is running, it will have an UI for you to use, unless it's a background process (which osx has too). If a program has an UI around, there's clearly an instance of the program running, ergo you have a window open. If you close all the program windows, you don't want to use any of the program instances anymore, ergo there should be nothing left of the program running.
>>53771928
It's more of a close window button than a close program button. For programs where closing the window means you're more than likely done with the program such as Calculator, the program closes because you're probably done.
>If I wanted to minimize a window, I would have pressed the minimize button, why have 2 buttons that do the same thing?
They don't do the same thing. The red button makes the window go away completely, the yellow button keeps the window alive and minimizes it.
>Why not at least make in consistent
It is for the most part consistent, there are just some programs that assume closing the window means you're done.
>>53771928
>open 2 browser windows
>pressing the first x closes the first window
>pressing the second x shuts down the whole program
>hurr durr this x is different because its the last window
>>53772105
And when is that distinction useful?
>>53771928
>os x
>logic
they actually do have some backhanded logic that only makes sense to aspies
Except the close button is not supposed to close the program, but the window. Sorry retarded OP.
>>53772171
kek you're right >>53772156
>>53772187
I fail to see the issue with any of this. It sounds to me like you're suffering from baby duck syndrome.
The autism in here
Is it really that complicated to get away from the baby duck syndrome produced by Windows? I spent 16 fucking years using Windows left and right and when I had to get into OSX I didn't have that much trouble figuring this out.
>>53772165
>open 2 browser windows
Why? Browsers have tabs.
>>53772145
There are plenty of instances where I would still want a program running without any active interfaces.
>>53772210
are windows users literally this retarded?
>>53772145
stop trying to use logic with these macfags.
you're trying to reason with clones that wear the same clothes everyday because "it wastes .5 seconds of brain cycles" to actually pic a different shirt every morning.
also they believe that vitamin C cures cancer.
>>53772222
Quads confirm it
I think he just didn't get it
>>53772205
Why do I have to keep tabs on what closes and when to close it? Am I supposed to manually periodically clear the retarded dock of programs that I don't seem to be using right now? Or am I supposed to check if I'm closing the last window of the program and then select cmd-q or cmd-w? At what point am I actually supposed to close the programs? It makes ZERO sense.
Being able to close a process fully is not always what one intends.
But because a Task Manager is not a front-level UI element any more, it makes this design choice fucking stupid.
Wasn't there some hotkey in Windows that let you force close a process outside of Task Manager?
I dunno, I think maybe I wrote that myself.
Use minimize when you don't want to lose what's in a current window, but you do want to get it off your desktop for the moment because you need something else that's there. So it's minimized to the dock. For example, you're in Safari, but you're working in Word too, and you need space for a couple of Word's windows, so you put Safari into the background by minimizing it.
You close a window when you're done with it. You don't need what's in it anymore, but you're not done with the program that created it. Say you're in Word editing a document, you print it, you save it, and now you're done with it. So you close it. But unlike Windows, that doesn't make it quit Word, because you were actually going to work on another document, and if Word closed you'd have to launch it all over again.
When you're done with a window, you close it. When you're done with an application, you quit it. When you want to temporarily move a window off your desktop, you minimize it.
You can also hide an application's windows using command-H. It's still running, but all its windows are gone until you click on the application's dock icon again.
Hope that helps.
>>53772258
>Being able to close a process fully is not always what one intends.
then don't click the goddamn """"""''close""""""" button.
>>53772145
There are plenty of instances where it makes sense to have a program running with no windows. Activity Monitor and Transmission come to mind.
>>53772251
>Why do I have to keep tabs on what closes and when to close it?
Because some devs think their program should close when the window does.
>Am I supposed to manually periodically clear the retarded dock of programs that I don't seem to be using right now?
No, you're supposed to use Cmd+Q when you're done with an application.
>At what point am I actually supposed to close the programs
When you're done with them.
>>53772273
>Hope that helps.
yep, illustrates perfectly how fucking shit-tier the design of OS X is.
>>53772211
Such as?
>inb4 le music player
NOTHING keeps the music player from being able to have a proper UI while playing. That's how music players work everywhere else. The player has a slider, a pause button and a bunch of shit. If you close that all, the player stops. If you don't want to stop the program, you FUCKING MINIMIZE IT INSTEAD OF CLOSING. There's no difference on the used dock space, the only difference is that Apple's solution is idiotic.
>>53771928
>downloading shit while browsing the 4chin
>enough autism for the day and close browser
>"Do you want to cancel your current downloads?"
>have to open blank browser page just so it doesn't cancel your downloads
>>53772279
No, just have the only option of minimizing it and leaving it at the same state.
>>53772211
Same here.
So when I don't want to have a program running, but don't want to see an interface, I minimize it.
When I don't want a program running, I close it.
And in a sane DE, I can do both with 1 mouse click. In OSX, closing a program requires keyboard shortcuts or going into a dropdown menu.
My favorite part is when you minimize the activity monitor, you can't bring it back without right clicking and selecting the window. A bug that has existed for well over a year and apple still can't fix.
>>53772316
>In OSX, closing a program requires keyboard shortcuts or going into a dropdown menu.
You can also do it from the dock.
>>53772316
>In OSX, closing a program requires keyboard shortcuts or going into a dropdown menu.
and this is why os x is the most retarded os in existense
>>53772223
>also they believe that vitamin C cures cancer.
funny because it's true
>>53772298
>When you're done with them.
Okay, and what if I had a window open I had forgotten about? So I AM supposed to keep tabs of every single fucking window on my machine?
>>53772341
*2 different dropdown menus
>>53772168
closing windows closes individual projects in xcode for example
>>53772347
>funny because it's true
ask steve jobs if it is
>>53772341
So complicated, he could be wasting half a second of his life as this guy describes >>53772223 ironically
>>53772346
>>53772316
In all honesty, OS X is an unusable piece of shit, UI-wise.
>>53772347
>funny because it's true
>>53772347
I really don't see what the big issue is, I've never had a problem with any of this and have used Windows for most of my life. This is not that difficult to comprehend.
>>53772165
See, if I open a program twice..
I want to run it twice.
Is that so hard to grasp?
When I ask a program to shut down using the UI "close" command, O want it to fucking stop running.
Is this so fucking hard to grasp????
>>53772368
There has been at least one case where MASSIVE iv drips of vitamin c have caused it to go into remission. I don't know if jobs tried that though, he had a very manageable disease but chose to not use any already proven methods
>>53772368
the fact that they think this is true*
>>53772341
>find program icon on the dock
>right click it (slow on trackpad BTW, you're using a trackpad aren't you?)
>move your mouse to hide
>click hide
vs
>click minimize button
Yeah uh
>>53772372
You could say that about anything that you're retarded to figure out
>>53772414
>You could say that about anything that you're retarded to figure out
>anything that you're retarded to
Yeah, keep throwing those desperate ad hominems around famalam
>>53772301
I multitask a lot, and having an icon for a program I'm not going to be touching for the next few hours as it does it's whatever in the background is annoying. It's wasting space on the Taskbar, so I would prefer if it wasn't there.
Music players, torrent clients, video renders, 3d renders, etc all benefit from this.
>>53772316
Still has an icon that takes space on the Taskbar. If I'm not going to touch it for a while, that's a waste of space.
>>53772402
>right clicking is slow on a trackpad
It takes literally the same amount of time to right click as it does to left click
>>53772402
What you don't seem to realize is that there's still a minimize button
In reality Windows only has two options there, while OSX has three. Of course it's hard for anyone with an IQ under 50 to get adapted to an extra function that wasn't there before.
>>53772398
Are your programs so shitty that they can't handle multiple windows?
>>53772430
It's about the only thing I can do, you faggots are too bullheaded to understand anything than what you've grown up using. Enjoy that baby duck syndrome :^)
>>53772448
I dont WANT them to! Why would I?
>>53772442
It takes 2 fingers and is clumsier by however little
>>53772441
>It's wasting space on the Taskbar, so I would prefer if it wasn't there.
But it's not a waste of space on the dock? What's the difference?
On any sane DE you CAN actually do the exact thing you describe, by making the whole icon go on a notification area. Not possible on OSX tho
>>53772441
The best thing is that in order to get rid of that stupid clutter caused by minimizing several windows they had to do something similar to OSX. Pinning programs to the taskbar and such.
>>53772447
>What you don't seem to realize is that there's still a minimize button
Except it's completely fucking backwards, why does it make a new icon for every window I minimize while the open windows are crammed under one icon?
>>53772492
>It takes 2 fingers and is clumsier by however little
Not really. I assume you have never tried it.
>>53772492
>>53772501
I'm not defending OSX here. I hate the dock. I'm just saying that a program having no active interfaces doesn't mean it should be closed.
>>53772522
I have my index finger on the pad all the time, clicking only requires me to apply extra pressure. 2-clicking requires me to move a second finger in there. It IS slower, it literally can't be as fast.
>>53772515
Because if your windows are opened you don't need to see them at the taskbar? I fail to understand your point. You can bind anything to mission control as well in case you're having too many opened windows. I use my DPI switch on my mouse to do that and it's fucking neato.
>>53771963
/thread
>>53772529
If it has no active interfaces, how can you ever interact with it? It should either be something you want silently running on the background all the time (a background process) OR it should have its UI minimized somewhere (like a notification area) waiting to be used. The menu bar on OSX is UI too.
>>53772482
I don't follow. Why would you want two instances of the same program running when you can have one program with two windows?
>>53772515
Because you haven't taken the time to change that setting.
>>53772579
>>53772529
and yes I agree, the dock is horrible. I would have a lot more respect for OS X if their window management wasn't retarded, it would be a good OS then.
>>53772555
Yes, it's probably slower by a negligible amount, so it's not significant enough to call it "slow". It's a retarded argument.
>>53772555
Dude you realize that the thing can be set to act like every other trackpad, where you click on the right corner to right click and the left to left click right?
>>53772579
In the notification area, you're moving the goalposts now if you're the same guy. Someone higher up was saying if a program has no windows open it should not be running, and that's stupid. Because notification area minimized doesn't have an active window.
>>53772587
That's actually a good catch. Still doesn't invalidate the rest of the points ITT
>>53772597
>the dock is horrible
Hide it, make it small, forget it exists. I haven't used the dock in years.
The close button closes the window. A program can be made up of many windows. Are you all fucking idiots or something?
How is not the same thing with Windows? Sometimes when you close the window the app closes, sometimes the app just goes to tray but it keeps open.
>>53772335
Send a report through the Feedback Assistant. Then they'll most definitely fix it. I have reported a bunch of UI inconsistencies that way and now they are correct. Try to hold down a window with your mouse and press ctrl + →, the window used to disappear for a split second, now it stays ontop of the animation.
>>53772644
No, it's hard to understand because Windows is of course the pinnacle of design and everything was designed after it
>>53772604
It doesn't even matter, minimizing windows with the right-click context menu is still painful
>>53772610
Not the same guy. I just think the mainstream model of instances (visualized as windows and icons), background instances (notification area), and hidden processes (no icons anywhere) is perfect in its simplicity.
>If I wanted to minimize a window, I would have pressed the minimize button
microsoft are guilty of this shit too OP. here's a list of things that don't close skype
- the close button button
- the 'close' button on the file menu
- right clicking on the taskbar window and pressing 'close'
- right-clicking on the window border and selecting 'close'
- alt-f4
>>53772633
But then how do you switch between windows? I'm genuinely interested, it must take you like seconds.
>>53771963
First post best post
>>53772653
That's highly exceptional behavior and not the norm. For what it's worth, I think minimizing to tray on close, at least by default, is hitler-tier.
>>53772676
>Windows is of course the pinnacle of design and everything was designed after it
Apple's operating systems have been functioning this way since before Windows was a thing.
>>53772694
Cmd+`
>>53772653
Most of the time on Windows the program closes, most of the time in OSX just the window closes.
That's what is making it hard for sperglords.
>>53772653
In windows that happens when the program is set to run in the background, and in which case it will minimize to the notification bar
>>53772714
>Cmd+`
And what if you have 10 windows open? 20? 30? That takes like ages.
>>53772644
Not in the case of Safari, from my experience.
1 window, closing which doesn't end the program.
>>53772694
>But then how do you switch between windows?
Not him, but personally I have nothing minimized ever and I just swipe to different virtual desktops to get to different things.
If I had many things open, I'd use cmd+tab
>>53772732
>And what if you have 10 windows open? 20? 30?
The vast majority of people never have anywhere near 30 windows open
>>53772732
I've never experienced such a thing.
>>53772714
I'm just saying, that's what some people here think apparently.
Not to mention in any case, the irony of complaining about how unintuitive and complex it is while also claiming that OSX is a babby tier OS for people who don't know how to use a computer.
Personally I've been using Windows since forever, still use it now, just dual booting. I'm just wondering how these people keep their jobs if they're whining about things like these.
>>53772680
Yes there's rare bad programs around. That's the fault of a too unrestrictive API and shit design on the program's part. Close button should have been left untouchable.
>>53772758
>The vast majority of people never have anywhere near 30 windows open
Well, if you have like 5 windows total open it doesn't really matter how the UI works. Lots of windows is where the UI is measured up, and if it doesn't work well with lots of windows then it's a bad UI.
>>53772752
That's what he's saying you fucking moron. Windows aren't programs, they're just a part of the program.
>>53772399
He felt bad for milking retards, he low-key committed suicide.
>>53772796
I regularly have 5 or 10 windows open, but two or three per program. Using Cmd+Tab to cycle to the proper program and Cmd+` to cycle through the current program's windows takes practically no time at all. And there's always Mission Control if you get lost or something, not to mention workspaces.
>>53772828
Still, clicking on the icon directly will almost always be a lot faster. And more convenient, that's what matters to me. This is one of the cases where mouse is useful
It's probably to make the os seems more lightweight than it actually is. The second time you launch the program it seems like it launched instantly, but it was running in the background all the time. They do something similar with iOS multitasking. When you exit an app and go to the multitasking ui you see a screenshot of it's loading screen, making it look like it never closed the app.
>>53772872
It hasn't been according to personal experience, but hey whatever works for you.
>>53771928
>use OS X at work
>close in design
>window closes but application runs
>close Window
>safari still runs
>reopen a safari window and In design window after lunch, didn't need to relaunch applications
>go home
>forget i use Windows
>close Firefox with 33 tabs (threads, articles, saucees etc)
>fucking reee at my mistake, remember windows closers the program when you close all Windows
If Windows 10 had this feature id move in a heartbeat, until then I'm planing on moving to OS X in the coming weeks from win 7
>continue with work
>>53772935
Closing a web browser is quite literally the dumbest fucking excuse you can try to use. Holy shit that is what ram is for you fucking idiot, not to mention there are hard drives father than 5200rpm now, maybe you should pick one up
>>53771928
>Close button doesn't close the program
>Except for some cases in which it does
Agreed, Windows can be retarded sometimes.
>If I wanted to minimize a window, I would have pressed the minimize button, why have 2 buttons that do the same thing?
Yeah, whats the point of the system tray if I can just minimize applications?
>Why not at least make in consistent across programs?
Ask the application developers I guess?
>>53772935
this is how dumb mactards are
>>reopen a safari window and In design window after lunch, didn't need to relaunch applications
How about
>open a new firefox window for the one you closed
>use the available session restore feature to get back your stuff in the previous window you deliberately closed
>>53773031
>I'll take two extra clicks instead of one becaus muh Windows
Keep in mind ok OS X I can close all Windows on transmission, the torrents still run download and transmission runs.
when I close all Windows Deluge client on winXP/7/8/10, the program shuts down.
Checkmate Microsoft.
>>53772973
My company supplies me and the other designers wth 2013 Mac pros
>>53773107
Then why do you close the windows if you don't want it to quit? That doesn't make any sense.
>>53773129
You close the windows for it to be less cluttered.
>>53773129
I only have one monitor at home, and don't like the clutter on the taskbar.
>>53773145
For what to be less cluttered? You can't get rid of the dock icon no matter how many windows you close.
>>53773162
Are you all retarded? See >>53773173
>>53773173
Literally what. You close windows so they don't show up in the multiple desktops view or when it shows all open windows.
>>53773224
>what is minimize
>what is a real taskbar
>>53773238
ITT: People act like retards when using things they don't like.
>>53773275
taht is geniuane question, what about minimization, you know, something OSx used to have back when they didn't use BSD based kernel.
>>53773306
OS X has always been BSD based
>>53773345
I mean OS9 pardon me.
>>53773123
And? Your dumb browser comparison still is literally useless.
>>53773483
That was a retort to your comment thinking i used spinning disks of rust that were 5400rpm. I use flash storage.
>>53773238
Even when windows are minimized in windows they pop up in these views.
>>53771928
>>Close button doesn't close the program
>Can someone explain the logic behind this retarded design decision to me?
Mac programs always have an accessible menu bar (top of screen). So it's no big deal to leave a program open, get back to it, and do something with it.
>>Except for some cases in which it does
You mean cases where the developer broke Apple's standards? That's not Apple's fault.
>If I wanted to minimize a window, I would have pressed the minimize button, why have 2 buttons that do the same thing?
Minimize is NOT the same as close.
>Why not at least make in consistent across programs?
Apple can't physically force compliance.
>One window = one running program instance. It's fucking simple.
Except that's not true in many situations. And on Windows what did we get to deal with those situations? Fucking MDI, the most retarded shit on Earth.
This is a real example I have on a MBP with a Parallels Windows VM and a cross platform tool.
Mac
* Launch IDE that takes time to load.
* Work in project.
* Close project but leave app open.
* Come back later and a different project opens instantly because app still running.
Windows
* Launch IDE that takes time to load.
* Work in project.
* Close project. HURR DURR APP IS NOW CLOSED.
* Come back later and wait to launch program again.
>>53773774
That's Apple's problem. OSX replaces proper "close this instance" button with a button that maybe closes an instance, maybe just closes the window and leaves an unnamed instance of the program hanging around for nothing.
If minimize hid windows from those views all would be ok. Alternatively, there should be an alternative minimize button that does that. Now that the close button is part minimize part close, you partially miss both closing (last window leaves an imaginary instance alive) and minimizing (can't hide windows from expose without closing them).
>>53773970
>Mac
>* Launch IDE that takes time to load.
>* Work in project.
>* Close project but leave app open.
>* Come back later and a different project opens instantly because app still running.
>Windows
>* Launch IDE that takes time to load.
>* Work in project.
>* Close project. HURR DURR APP IS NOW CLOSED.
>* Come back later and wait to launch program again.
You do understand an icon being visible on your taskbar has nothing to do with how the OS caches the program?
>>53772799
And what I'm saying is that closing a Window doesn't close it ( the window) - it minimizes it.
Even if there was some reason I wanted to have a browser running without any browser windows being active, if I press the close button on the last window, I want it closed and that's not happening.
>>53774013
No, closing the window closes it. It's not minimized to the dock, it's not magically hidden, it's fucking gone. The program is still running though. A running program is not the same as a window.
Just use CMD + Q you sperglord
>>53773970
Windows
*Close project if you want to close it
*Minimize it if you want to keep the program open
Mac
*Close project if you want to keep the program open
*Minimize it if you want to keep the program open
I mean I get that you can close it through dropdown menu or with keyboard, but I close programs way more frequently than I minimize them, so having 2 slightly different kinds of minimization seems pointless to me, while not having a 1 click way to close something is irritating.
>>53774059
We all get that. What you don't seem to get is that it should be. >>53772145
>>53774013
You don't want that specific behavior, that's fine. But you're still wrong about your first statement.
Minimize: Window minimizes itself, same contents
Close: Window -closes- itself, program still runs in the background
Here's the thing: You might not want this behavior, but you still have the option to close the actual program itself, from different places
Meanwhile, if people wanted it the way OSX behaves itself on Windows, it isn't possible. They're stuck with minimizing. I can't go and tell windows with a keyboard shortcut not to put that program in the taskbar but still be running it on the background, unless that specific software supports that function.
>>53774099
That's wrong though. There are plenty of programs you would want running without needing a window open for. Like Activity Monitor and Transmission
>>53774010
>muh os cache
You do understand that I am telling you what actually happens? I have to wait on the Windows side, os cache or not.
This is why Adobe uses MDI for their apps. They take time to launch regardless of any fucking cache. And users will likely want to keep the program running their entire work day to avoid this shit. Without MDI when you close the last file the whole program exits. With MDI you have retarded MDI, but at least you're not waiting.
>>53774059
Except clicking on the 'running program with not windows open' will bring up the window I've supposedly closed.
You're arguing about semantics. It's effectively the same as minimization.
>>53774159
Why minimize a window you don't need when you can just fucking close it?
>>53774168
No, it reopens a window from where you left off. Or opens a new window.cedar
>>53774084
>Windows
>*Close project if you want to close it
>*Minimize it if you want to keep the program open
I don't want to keep the project in RAM. Even with 16GB. Nor do I want to have to remember to minimize every time I'm dealing with the last open project or file.
>Mac
>*Close project if you want to keep the program open
>*Minimize it if you want to keep the program open
No. Minimize project if you're not done with it but need to see something else. Close project when you're done with it. Quit app when you're done for the day. (Or never. A Mac app with nothing open takes barely any RAM.)
>>53774168
Try with chrome for instance. You're on a website and unless you have it setup so it opens your last session at startup, by closing the window you're not closing the program, but when you click on that little son of a whore again, it'll take you to your homepage or new tab or whatever you chose to have at first. It -won't- bring you the same contents as if you minimized it.
>>53774152
>They take time to launch regardless of any fucking cache.
Almost instant if freshly closed and still in ram, completely fast enough if restore from HDD.
>And users will likely want to keep the program running their entire work day to avoid this shit.
If programs were this difficult to cache, you wouldn't want them staying open _indefinitely_ after you explicitly close them
>Without MDI when you close the last file the whole program exits. With MDI you have retarded MDI, but at least you're not waiting.
muh mdi
Disregarding your fixation with MDI, each window represents an instance, each instance may have all the necessary common UI elements the program needs - and not just a menubar. You close an instance when you're done with it, you launch a new instance of the program when you want another project and whatnot. What's so difficult about that?
>>53774215
>No, it reopens a window from where you left off.
Like un-minimizing something would.
I don't care what's technically going on. The effect is the same, so why have 2 buttons dedicated to it?
>>53774215
Because when I fucking close a window I want any traces of the program related to it gone. I have the two required brain cells to minimize when I want to minimize.
>>53773972
You won the award of not making sense, sir. Good job, you earned it.
>>53774258
The effect is not the same, just try pulling your head out of your ass and accepting your baby duck syndrome
>>53774279
So close the program when you're done instead of just closing the program's window. I apparently have the braincells required to comprehend this one while you don't.
ITT: Macfags justifying convoluted UI that helps them get by without buying horrendously overpriced RAM upgrades.
>>53774247
>Try with chrome for instance.
I don't use Chrome because of -among other reasons- that exact behaviour.
ITT: people who are too retarded to understand something they aren't used to
>>53774356
>by keeping the program in the ram instead of cleering it they prevent themselves from running out of ram and having to buy more
okthen.
>>53774356
>OS X is for babies
>but I can't understand it
>>53773972
But minimizing prevents a window from being shown in expose?
>>53774385
First you say it doesn't do that. Now you say that you don't use X software because it does that. Well?
>>53774396
Not liking something and not understanding it are 2 different things.
Unlike the minimize and close buttons on the OSX UI.
>>53774435
See there you go proving you don't understand.
>>53774432
Safari doesn't do that.
Chrome, which I don't use on OSX, but have tried on Windows does.
>>53774478
Actually it does. Unless you have it set so it opens with your last session.
>>53774252
>>They take time to launch regardless of any fucking cache.
>Almost instant if freshly closed and still in ram,
No. God damn it, I am telling you from first hand experience what happens. Why would you argue with a point of observed fact? "Muh fresh in RAM!" doesn't mean a damn thing when I accidentally close the last project and immediately go to launch the app again only to wait.
Applications which run significant initialization code at launch do not launch "almost instantly." Even if you just quit them, even if from a SSD. Adobe's apps are well known examples of this. First launch after boot for InDesign on one of my PC notebooks takes 8s. Subsequent launches take 5-6. On a Mac you leave it open and your time to get back to it is fucking zero seconds.
Do you get it now?
>>And users will likely want to keep the program running their entire work day to avoid this shit.
>If programs were this difficult to cache, you wouldn't want them staying open _indefinitely_ after you explicitly close them
WTF are you talking about? If I explicitly quit the app I'm done for the day. If I'm not done for the day I do want it open in the background so that I do not have to wait. Whatever OS caches are operative on Windows, they aren't fucking working as intended.
>Disregarding your fixation with MDI, each window represents an instance,
Not of a program, at least not with any large/complex programs.
>You close an instance when you're done with it, you launch a new instance of the program when you want another project and whatnot. What's so difficult about that?
The time I have to fucking wait.
>>53774168
>Except clicking on the 'running program with not windows open' will bring up the window I've supposedly closed.
That's because you program is configured to reopen your last session.
>>53771928
Why do we have this thread all the time? There's plenty of things to criticize OSX for but this isn't one of them.
The close button does not terminate programs so that programs that function without active windows, such as steam, skype, and torrent clients, don't behave differently from programs that don't, such as firefox or solitaire.
The fact that it saves 50 pixels on the dock if you close the last window vs minimizing it is a side effect.
The window management in OS X is a little weird, but a lot more consistent than on Windows.
>Closing Windows
Cmd+Q: Quits the whole application and consequently closes all associated Windows.
Cmd+W or (x): Closes the active window, but usually leaves the application running. Very few small applications that involve just a single window (i.e. something like Coconut Battery, a tool which checks your battery status) quit completely when (x). Cmd+W is not available with those applications.
>Hiding Windows
Cmd+H: Hides the window. Can be reopened by clicking on it in the dock. It's very much the same behaviour like (–) on Windows.
(–): Can be configured to either put the window in some separate section of the dock (don't like that at all) or to do the same as Cmd+H, just with a fancy animation.
>Resizing Windows
Fullscreen: Activates fullscreen mode, which is basically creating a new space for that application alone.
(+) or double click on upper edge of the window: Enlarges the window, to what size exactly is determined by the developer.
Now you know how it works.
>>53774337
I'm done with one instance at a time. I don't want to keep track of whether there's some instance I'm forgetting about when I close.
If I close the last instance, that's it. There's nothing left of the program. So it also makes sense that if the program instances happened to be bound by some kind of shared state like the current session on your browser, it will be gone too since you have no more instances to access it from, the entire program is closed. I gotta admit that's where an "invisible" instance, a session, running on the background would make sense. HOWEVER there's no reason that maintaining that state between two sessions shouldn't be the program's responsibility - it can either choose to save it permanently if it fits, or make it restorable at will when the user notices he closed the only running instance of the program, ending the current contiguous session. Program sessions don't have to be explicit, and they're better managed by the OS as program instances come and go. Also Apple's model doesn't let programs choose which data they want to retain and which data they want to discard when the last window closes. Technically programs should save all their session data permanently when the last instance closes, and removing should happen from a menu inside the program - this would be pretty close to how OS X handles it, except nicer since you don't have to worry about closing the session manually, and only lose session data when you deliberately delete it
Sorry for autism
>>53774807
I don't think I've ever seen someone overthink something this simple that much
>closing one tab in an Internet browser should close everything
>closing one Window in an Internet browser should close the program
>closing one window in an application should close the whole application
I bet you let your wife's son fuck your daughters girlfriend. Don't you?
>>53774880
send help
>>53771928
For retards, this is good. Saves on power consumption and caches things they'll open over and over. Not even caching...just hiding.
For anyone with a brain, there is Cmd+Q, which does exactly what you want.
protip: when you're switching to a minimized app using Cmd+Tab, you can hold Option before releasing Cmd to unminimize it.
doing this on the Finder with no Finder windows in play will create a new Finder window.
>>53774807
It sounds to me like you've never used a "real" application that has to do work just to set itself up on launch or interact with multiple documents and large data sets.
Consumer OSes for phones and tablets go even further then you suggest in that you do not explicitly quit anything by any action. The OS completely manages program state. And that's fine for a consumer OS with small apps.
It's utterly retarded for a desktop OS intended for real work with real applications.
Are you that retarded minna-san. That was the dumbest thread I've ever seen.
>ITT: retards who have only used Windows and Ubuntu
If you actually knew how Processes work you would realize this intuitively makes sense
>he thinks it's a close button
rofl
>>53775478
The problem with your reasoning is that the OS can't control what state the program saves/restores when it quits/starts. It's completely up to the program. So why shouldn't it be up to the program to also keep the state regardless of the open windows/instances? The OS could still include a close+clear button that sends the program a "clear your session data" message, but in the end the program has to decide what it does with its data.
Sessions shouldn't be tied to top-level "instance windows" or any other windows/dialogs the program launches. They should get cleared when told, regardless of whether there are windows of the program around or not
>>53774699
Cmd+opt+F: window stretches to fill all space
Cmd+opt+left: window moves to fill left half of screen
Cmd+opt+right: window moves to right half
Spectacles master race. Seriously, use this program, OS X window management becomes so much better.
>>53775718
Meant to add an "etc." after the last one, that list is by no means comprehensive
>>53775718
It's just a bunch of tiling shortcuts dude, every OS has those
>>53775718
Ich already use BetterTouchTool which does everything I need and more.
>>53775777
Fair enough. I like the fact that spectacles just does keyboard shortcuts and nothing else.
>>53775394
I just realized
I'm using hackintosh right now with a normal crappy logitech keyboard. I didn't think of the placement of each of the modifier keys. I had option and cmd switched which made that awkward.
>>53772402
if you don't use CMD + Q anyway, you should litteraly kill yourself
>hurr durr running windows
Kill yourself
>>53772773
>rare bad programs around
Microsofts own software
kek
