 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / General / May 2008And So The Question Is......
Now that the MacBook Pro is capable of running Windows XP and Vista operating systems, when will Apple introduce a laptop which will have an actual "right-click" button under the touchpad. We know that you can right-click on the Mac touchpad by two-fingering the pad, but does anyone foresee a physical right-click button ever appearing on a MacBook ????? > Now that the MacBook Pro is capable of running Windows XP and Vista > operating systems, when will Apple introduce a laptop which will have > an actual "right-click" button under the touchpad. We know that you > can right-click on the Mac touchpad by two-fingering the pad, but > does anyone foresee a physical right-click button ever appearing on a > MacBook ????? I do not foresee it happening. If Apple had wanted to do that, they would have done so instead of the two-finger solution in the first place. I strongly doubt that Apple will design any facet of its hardware with Windows in mind. (Crossposted and followups set to comp.sys.mac.hardware)  SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > Now that the MacBook Pro is capable of running Windows XP and Vista > operating systems, when will Apple introduce a laptop which will have an > actual "right-click" button under the touchpad. We know that you can > right-click on the Mac touchpad by two-fingering the pad, but does anyone > foresee a physical right-click button ever appearing on a MacBook ????? I'm new to the Mac platform, just got my iMac last Friday. I've been "exploring" a lot, trying to get familiar with this OS. Mostly I switched to get something more reliable, less fussy than Windoze. But I've been watching this long time battle between these two since it's beginning. After operating my Mac for a week, observing the subtle and not so subtle differences, it seems to me that this is more than a competition between two giant corporations for the PC market, but a mega-competition between two mega-egos. In the far corner (now that I've switched sides), we have Billy, a street brawler who will kick, bite, punch below the belt, anything to win. More amoral than immoral. On the near corner, we have Stevie, the underdog, claiming the moral high ground in this brutal battle not just for the PC market, but for righteousnous and goodness as well. Billy shamelessly steals from anyone, particularly Stevie. Winning is all, there is not price he, or his customers shouldn't be willing to pay, to win. Stevie, being a distant second in this arena, has chosen to appear the good guy, to avow being the best and the truest in the fray. So Stevie wants to pretend that he is above Billy, and certainly would not stoop so low as to even think about taking ideas, much less stealing them, from Billy. Hence, the Mighty Mouse! It looks like a one-button mouse. Out of my iMac box, it is! But concealed from the view of the casual observer, it's really the dreaded two-button mouse that originated in the castles of Redmond! The horrors! We need to keep our righteous image! We can never, ever admit that we've sunk so low as to use any idea, concept or device from the evil camp to the north. We also fastideously avoid incorporating any other advances made by the barbarian hordes, like a damn Quit button in the damn apps window, where it obviously should be. But no, we hold to the holiness of the scripture of the forbidden fruit, and steadfastly refused, year after year, OS update after OS update, to sucumb to the temptation of borrowing from the lowliest of the low! How honorable! Which is a verbose way of saying, don't hold your breath. Any innovation originating in Redmond, and admittedly, there have been few, will be a long time migrating to Cupertino, I can promise! The very obvious physical appearance of an additional button on your laptop would be a tacit admission of defeat to the high and honorable Stevie and not in our near future, anymore than a Quit button in our application windows or a "back" button in Finder! > > Now that the MacBook Pro is capable of running Windows XP and Vista > > operating systems, when will Apple introduce a laptop which will have an > > actual "right-click" button under the touchpad. We know that you can > > right-click on the Mac touchpad by two-fingering the pad, but does anyone > > foresee a physical right-click button ever appearing on a MacBook ????? Huh? When you say "two-fingering the pad", do you mean using the pad plus holding down the ctrl key? Or is there another technique that I've missed, that involves only the pad? > > > Now that the MacBook Pro is capable of running Windows XP and Vista > > > operating systems, when will Apple introduce a laptop which will have an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > plus holding down the ctrl key? Or is there another technique that I've > missed, that involves only the pad? System Preferences -> Keyboard&Mouse -> Trackpad You can turn on "Tap trackpad using two fingers for secondary click" if you have turned on "Clicking". If not, you can turn on "For secondary clicks place two fingers on the trackpad and then click the button". I find that clicking, dragging, and drag lock are a lot more convenient for me than using the mechanical button at all. No need to use the control key for contextual functions. > > > > Now that the MacBook Pro is capable of running Windows XP and Vista > > > > operating systems, when will Apple introduce a laptop which will [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > for me than using the mechanical button at all. No need to use the > control key for contextual functions. I couldn't quite work out the gestures for dragging so I left them off and still use the button, but I've found clicking and scrolling very useful. Note that this feature is only available on recent laptops. From my experimentation it seems to have appeared around the time of the last iBook model (July 2005), possibly earlier on PowerBook G4 models. It is supported by all Intel-based laptops (MacBook etc.) SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > The very obvious physical appearance of an additional button on your > laptop would be a tacit admission of defeat to the high and honorable > Stevie and not in our near future, anymore than a Quit button in our > application windows or a "back" button in Finder! There can't be a quit button in the application window because there is no application window. Each window is a document window. There is no containing window for a document window as there is with MS Windows. The Mac OS is document based, not application based. It seems that we have this discussion every time a convert from Windows joins us. It is understandable, though; I recall having the same kind of reaction the times that I had to use Windows, and was a bit frustrated that I couldn't move the document window anywhere I wanted on the monitor because it was constrained by the application window. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> The very obvious physical appearance of an additional button on your >> laptop would be a tacit admission of defeat to the high and honorable [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > containing window for a document window as there is with MS Windows. > The Mac OS is document based, not application based. Interesting. So because it's a document window, there's no way to put a Quit button in it to close the app it belongs to? I'm no GUI programmer, but I find that hard to accept. > It seems that we have this discussion every time a convert from Windows > joins us. It is understandable, though; I recall having the same kind > of reaction the times that I had to use Windows, and was a bit > frustrated that I couldn't move the document window anywhere I wanted on > the monitor because it was constrained by the application window. Unless of course you fill the screen with the app window. I'm not advocating one system over the other here. I just switched to the Mac and voted with my checkbook. But it seems to me that Cupertino could benefit from some healthy, outright, stealing from the other side. Not so? > >> The very obvious physical appearance of an additional button on your > >> laptop would be a tacit admission of defeat to the high and honorable [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > containing window for a document window as there is with MS Windows. > > The Mac OS is document based, not application based. > Interesting. So because it's a document window, there's no way to put a > Quit button in it to close the app it belongs to? I'm no GUI programmer, > but I find that hard to accept. I don't think that is the reason. The reason is, that from a GUI standpoint, a document window should only have things that only affect the current document. A Quit button is not one of these things, because it affects the entire application, so also any other document that may be open in that application. I never missed a quit button, but I do see why windoze converts do. SignatureJohan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com >>>> The very obvious physical appearance of an additional button on your >>>> laptop would be a tacit admission of defeat to the high and honorable [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > be open in that application. I never missed a quit button, but I do see > why windoze converts do. Ok, that sounds like a good reason. Then why not a Quit button on the menu at the top? > Ok, that sounds like a good reason. Then why not a Quit button on the > menu at the top? The bottom item of Application menu is "Quit", followed by the application's name. You can also press Command-Q to quit an application. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > >> Interesting. So because it's a document window, there's no way to put a > >> Quit button in it to close the app it belongs to? I'm no GUI programmer, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > be open in that application. I never missed a quit button, but I do see > > why windoze converts do. > Ok, that sounds like a good reason. Then why not a Quit button on the menu > at the top? Again for GUI consistency. Apple does not use buttons in the menubar of applications, so why should they make an exception for quitting the application? There is a Quit menu and there is Cmd-Q. The latter is almost always faster than moving your cursor to a specific place in the menubar, especially when using a big screen or two screens. SignatureJohan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com > > >> The very obvious physical appearance of an additional button on your > > >> laptop would be a tacit admission of defeat to the high and honorable [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > be open in that application. I never missed a quit button, but I do see > why windoze converts do. Well, it's worse than that (in Windows). If you have multiple Word docs open (at least in Office2k under XP Pro), there's the "X" box for the document and another "X" box above it for the application window, but clicking the app window's box only quits that window, and other Word windows remain open. incredibly frustrating SignatureTeam EM to the rescue! http://www.team-em.com > Interesting. So because it's a document window, there's no way to put > a Quit button in it to close the app it belongs to? I'm no GUI > programmer, but I find that hard to accept. Look at it this way: You have three documents open in an application; what happens if you click a "Quit" button in one of those windows? (There are some applications in which only one window can be open at a time, and closing that window quits the app. System Preferences is one of them. You do know that the red button at the top left of a window closes that window, right? Normally, I wouldn't ask that question, but since you've been using a Mac for only a week, you may not have discovered that yet.) > > It seems that we have this discussion every time a convert from > > Windows joins us. It is understandable, though; I recall having [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > application window. > Unless of course you fill the screen with the app window. In which case you can't access the desktop without resizing the app window. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> Interesting. So because it's a document window, there's no way to put >> a Quit button in it to close the app it belongs to? I'm no GUI >> programmer, but I find that hard to accept. > > Look at it this way: You have three documents open in an application; > what happens if you click a "Quit" button in one of those windows? Good point! (I hate when that happens!) :) > (There are some applications in which only one window can be open at a > time, and closing that window quits the app. System Preferences is one > of them. You do know that the red button at the top left of a window > closes that window, right? Normally, I wouldn't ask that question, but > since you've been using a Mac for only a week, you may not have > discovered that yet.) O yeah, been clicking everything in site, except for those "Hide" menu items. Afraid I'll never find it again. But I suspect that that's what's happening when I click that red circle and there are no other windows for that app open. Is that correct? >>> It seems that we have this discussion every time a convert from >>> Windows joins us. It is understandable, though; I recall having [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In which case you can't access the desktop without resizing the app > window. Okay, you're overdoing the good point allotment for a single message. :) > O yeah, been clicking everything in site, except for those "Hide" > menu items. Afraid I'll never find it again. No problem; just click on the application's icon in the Dock. > But I suspect that that's what's happening when I click that red > circle and there are no other windows for that app open. Is that > correct? Nope. Try this experiment: Open an application that allows multiple windows, TextEdit, for example. Click on the red dot of the window. If you have more than one window open, click on the red dot of each window. You should have all the TextEdit windows closed. Look at the Application menu (the one just to the right of the Apple menu). It should still say "Text Edit"; furthermore, all the other menus are for Text Edit. Choose "New" from the File menu; you will now have a new TextEdit window. Type something in that window so you can identify it. Now choose "Hide TextEdit" from the Application menu. The TextEdit window vanishes, and the Application menu changes to another application or to the Finder. Now click the TextEdit icon in the Dock. Viola! Your TextEdit document is back and the Application menu is the TextEdit menu. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> O yeah, been clicking everything in site, except for those "Hide" >> menu items. Afraid I'll never find it again. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > or to the Finder. Now click the TextEdit icon in the Dock. Viola! Your > TextEdit document is back and the Application menu is the TextEdit menu. Yes, that's what I meant. > >> O yeah, been clicking everything in site, except for those "Hide" > >> menu items. Afraid I'll never find it again. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Yes, that's what I meant. But having an running application with no windows is not the same as hiding the application. A hidden application can never be the frontmost application, but one with no open windows can be the frontmost application. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >>>> O yeah, been clicking everything in site, except for those "Hide" >>>> menu items. Afraid I'll never find it again. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > application, but one with no open windows can be the frontmost > application. Oh! It's very confusing. Not sure if that's useful or not. If you close all the windows for that app, then switch to another, as I'll most often do, then it will be effectively "Hidden", won't it? I won't see that apps window again unless I click on it's icon. Right? > >>>> O yeah, been clicking everything in site, except for those "Hide" > >>>> menu items. Afraid I'll never find it again. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > then it will be effectively "Hidden", won't it? I won't see that apps > window again unless I click on it's icon. Right? Probably right, but not always. For example: if you are running an application, close all its windows, switch to a second application, and then quit the second application, you'll have the previous application (though with no windows) frontmost again (its menus will be at the top of the screen). It isn't that confusing once one separates the notion of the _application_ (which is a computer program which may or may not be running on your computer) from the notion of what the application is _displaying_ on the desktop (which could be one window, many windows, no windows, its menu at the top of the screen, or none). >>>>>> O yeah, been clicking everything in site, except for those "Hide" >>>>>> menu items. Afraid I'll never find it again. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > _displaying_ on the desktop (which could be one window, many windows, > no windows, its menu at the top of the screen, or none). So if it's Hidden, with no windows open, it can't/won't show up on the menu bar? But if it's not Hidden, with no windows open, it might. That's what confuses and confounds me the most, or at least a lot, with the Mac OS. An app showing on the menu bar, with the bright dot under it's icon on the dock, but not there! I hate when that happens! Ok, maybe just dislike. But I'm learning to Quit when I'm done. It seems there is some small time advantage to keeping an app running, even when I'm not using it, when I need it up. So keeping things like iCal and Mail running, but hidden, most of the time, seems like it might work. I'm still experimenting with it. > So if it's Hidden, with no windows open, it can't/won't show up on > the menu bar? But if it's not Hidden, with no windows open, it might. It shows up on the menu bar only when it is the frontmost application. Hidden applications are never the frontmost application. > An app showing on the menu bar, with the bright dot under it's icon > on the dock, but not there! All that bright dot means is that the application is running; it can be frontmost, behind the frontmost, or hidden. The dot has nothing to do with whether there are any open windows in the application. > It seems there is some small time advantage to keeping an app > running, even when I'm not using it, when I need it up. So keeping > things like iCal and Mail running, but hidden, most of the time, > seems like it might work. That is true. Furthermore, while mail is running, even if it is hidden, it's still checking for new mail at whatever interval you have set. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > >>>>>> O yeah, been clicking everything in site, except for those "Hide" > >>>>>> menu items. Afraid I'll never find it again. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > dock, but not there! I hate when that happens! Ok, maybe just dislike. But > I'm learning to Quit when I'm done. Maybe there is some terminology problem here. The dock is that thing at the bottom or right side of your screen with icons on it, some with bright dots (meaning they are running) some without. The menu bar would normally mean the menu for the frontmost application which will be at the top of the screen. If it is running (hidden or not) it will be on the dock with a bright dot next to it. Think about "hiding" an application as telling your computer: "keep this program running, but don't show it to me unless I explicitly ask for it in some way." Usually you do this when you are getting something out of the way you intend to return to. By contrast closing all the windows tells the computer that you are done with whatever you were doing in that window, but not necessarily done with using the program. > It seems there is some small time advantage to keeping an app running, even > when I'm not using it, when I need it up. So keeping things like iCal and > Mail running, but hidden, most of the time, seems like it might work. I'm > still experimenting with it. I have the following things running most of the time on my computer, though I'm not using them all at once: a web browser, Mail, iCal, Terminal, a text editor, and usually a word processor. That reflects what I mostly use my computer for, of course. Sometimes the word processor (or the text editor, or both) will have several windows open at once as I'm editing several things simultaneously. Sometimes I'll close all of them when I finish what I'm doing, and then open a bunch of new windows with new documents. There is no advantage to closing the application, and there is a disadvantage since some things have a start-up time. I don't use hiding much at all, partly because I have Leopard and make extensive use of Spaces instead. I do occassionally use hiding. Mostly when there is a program running that doesn't require interaction from me, and I want its windows out of sight. > If it is running (hidden or not) it will be on the dock with a bright > dot next to it. Just for clarification, if the app is running and the dock is on the bottom of the screen, then the dot will be under the application icon. > If it is running (hidden or not) it will be on the dock with a bright > dot next to it. There are some "helper" apps, e.g., iTunesHelper & iCalAlarmScehduler, that run without showing in the Dock. The API calls that allow this _could_ be used by an ornery programmer to more completely hide his app. But the programmer _could_ also not use a helper and ask the O.S. to do the apps launching. For example, if I plug in my son's digital camera, iPhoto launches. But I do not have an iPhotoHelper in my login items. >> It seems there is some small time advantage to keeping an app running, even >> when I'm not using it, when I need it up. So keeping things like iCal and >> Mail running, but hidden, most of the time, seems like it might work. I'm >> still experimenting with it. And in such a case, there's really no point in hiding the Dock icon. But as I said, it _could_ be done. If Apple wanted to, they could write a "Mail Helper" that takes up very little memory and only checks for Mail, launching the full app when it detects new mail. Like iTunes Helper does when you put in a CD (unless you have turned it off). BTW, we need to learn to snip, folks. SignatureWes Groleau Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana! http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/ > There are some "helper" apps, e.g., iTunesHelper & iCalAlarmScehduler, > that run without showing in the Dock. The API calls that allow this > _could_ be used by an ornery programmer to more completely hide his app. > But the programmer _could_ also not use a helper and ask the O.S. to do > the apps launching. For example, if I plug in my son's digital camera, > iPhoto launches. But I do not have an iPhotoHelper in my login items. You don't even need to do something at the API level. There is a plist entry that launch services uses to decide whether a running app should show in the Dock. Sorry, I forget which it is, but it does work, at least in Tiger. (something about UIItem comes to mind, but I could be all wrong.) SignatureTed Lee Minnetonka, MN > Oh! It's very confusing. Not sure if that's useful or not. If you > close all the windows for that app, then switch to another, as I'll > most often do, then it will be effectively "Hidden", won't it? No, it won't be hidden. It just won't have any open windows. > I won't see that apps window again unless I click on it's icon. > Right? Keep in mind that there's no such thing as an application window. Windows are associated with documents. You can hide an application that has open windows. You can have a front application with no open windows. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > Oh! It's very confusing. Not sure if that's useful or not. If you > > close all the windows for that app, then switch to another, as I'll [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Keep in mind that there's no such thing as an application window. > Windows are associated with documents. You can hide an application that > has open windows. You can have a front application with no open windows. This might be a good way to think about things, but it isn't true universally. I can have an open window with no document associated, and for example it doesn't really make sense to think of the "Preferences" window of an application as associated with a document (OK - maybe it is in fact editing some plist somewhere or something, but since I don't know what or where the document being edited is, it still doesn't make sense to think of it that way). Another example is that a window for a calculator program also doesn't sensibly correspond to a document. > > > Oh! It's very confusing. Not sure if that's useful or not. If you > > > close all the windows for that app, then switch to another, as I'll [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > or where the document being edited is, it still doesn't make sense to > think of it that way). The fact that it doesn't make sense to you doesn't make it wrong. > Another example is that a window for a calculator program also doesn't > sensibly correspond to a document. All the calculator applications I have permit editing of the (document) window and some of them permit saving the results. SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF > > > > Oh! It's very confusing. Not sure if that's useful or not. If you > > > > close all the windows for that app, then switch to another, as I'll [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > The fact that it doesn't make sense to you doesn't make it wrong. That's true. The fact that it's wrong is what makes it wrong. And I really think it is wrong except in the somewhat tautological sense that _anything_ you do on a computer is altering some data stored on the computer (at least temporarily) somewhere. There are many examples of windows which are not associated to documents. Most of the example I can think of are associated to information stored somewhere in the universe in some way, and sometimes echoed temporarily on one's computer. I think it is a little stretch to say a web browser window is associated to a document (especially if it is empty because you haven't fetched anything). A bigger stretch to say that a calculator window is associated to a document or to say that the Activity window in Mail or the main window in Activity Viewer is associated to a document. That isn't to suggest that each of these windows isn't associated to some information stored (again perhaps temporarily) sonewhere. But if you are using the word "document" to mean that, then you may as well say an application is associated to a "document" since it is associated to its binary executable. > There are many examples of windows which are not associated to > documents. Most of the example I can think of are associated to > information stored somewhere in the universe in some way, and > sometimes echoed temporarily on one's computer. (supporting examples) Finder - but I guess one could argue that a directory is a document. Disk Utility - but I guess one could argue that a collection of storage devices is a document. :-) System Preferences - a collection of icons for a particular class of applications. Like so many Usenet arguments, this one stands on subjective semantics. If we keep it up, someone will redefine "window." SignatureWes Groleau "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as could possibly be imagined." -- David Hume, age 37 "There's no such thing of that, 'cause I never heard of it." -- Becky Groleau, age 4 > All the calculator applications I have permit editing of the > (document) window and some of them permit saving the results. I just noticed that clicking on the green button in Apple's Calculator application cycles through the three types of calculator. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > I just noticed that clicking on the green button in Apple's Calculator > application cycles through the three types of calculator. The three calculators are "basic", "scientific", and "programmer". Not only that but one can choose whether or not to use Reverse Polish Notation. A very flexible calculator indeed! SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com > The three calculators are "basic", "scientific", and "programmer". Not only > that but one can choose whether or not to use Reverse Polish Notation. A very > flexible calculator indeed! Unless it has an "analog" mode, I'm not interested. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22xcalc+-analog%22 :-) SignatureWes Groleau "There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over." -- Larry Wall > > The three calculators are "basic", "scientific", and "programmer". > > Not only that but one can choose whether or not to use Reverse > > Polish Notation. A very flexible calculator indeed! > > Unless it has an "analog" mode, I'm not interested. > http://www.google.com/search?q=%22xcalc+-analog%22 <http://www.finseth.com/realbasic/index-sliderule.php> SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > The three calculators are "basic", "scientific", and "programmer". Not only > > that but one can choose whether or not to use Reverse Polish Notation. A [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > :-) How about an OCR calculator? <http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/OMGWTF-Finalist-06-OMG!OCRCAL.aspx> Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix > I can have an open window with no document associated, and for > example it doesn't really make sense to think of the "Preferences" > window of an application as associated with a document But preferences is thought of as a dialog, not a window. (Yes, I know that dialogs are windows, but they're not usually thought of one as such.) SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > O yeah, been clicking everything in site, except for those "Hide" menu > items. Afraid I'll never find it again. But I suspect that that's what's > happening when I click that red circle and there are no other windows for > that app open. Is that correct? It's really up to the application's creator. Some apps quit when their last window is closed. Some don't. Usually there's a good reason for the decision. If there were a good reason for an application to have a quit button on every window, OS X will not prevent the programmer from coding that. (And if there ISN'T a good reason, , OS X will not prevent the programmer from putting one there anyway.) You're wrong (or was that someone else?) about Apple never copying anything from Redmond. The Dock does 95% of what the Windows task bar does, and does it better. Some people hate both--that's their right. Some people are angry about the missing five percent--that's their right. Oh, and don't forget the BSOD. OS X doesn't crash as often, but when it does, the screen is blue! But once again, Apple wins with a much more pleasant shade of blue. :-) SignatureWes Groleau Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana! http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/ > You're wrong (or was that someone else?) about Apple never copying > anything from Redmond. The Dock does 95% of what the Windows task bar > does, and does it better. I don't disagree with you, but that's not a good example. NeXT had the dock before Microsoft had the Taskbar. Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix > In which case you can't access the desktop without resizing the app window. I can. I sling the cursor down to the lower left corner, up pops Spaces, I click on an empty desktop, and Bob's your uncle. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. > > In which case you can't access the desktop without resizing the app > > window. > > I can. I sling the cursor down to the lower left corner, up pops > Spaces, I click on an empty desktop, and Bob's your uncle. There's no resizeable app window in the Mac OS; there are document windows. Regardless, you're not at the same desktop by doing that thing with Spaces. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >>> In which case you can't access the desktop without resizing the app >>> window. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There's no resizeable app window in the Mac OS; there are document > windows. You were the one who used the term "app window", not I. > Regardless, you're not at the same desktop by doing that thing with > Spaces. I don't understand what you're trying to achieve. When you said "you can't access the desktop without resizing the app window," what did you mean by "access"? Since Expose gives you immediate access to all the windows on the desktop, I took you to mean that you wanted to reach an icon underneath the windows. Spaces gives you access to the icons by going to a free desktop. If you didn't want to access another window (with Expose) or an icon (with Spaces), what did you want to access? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. > >>> In which case you can't access the desktop without resizing the > >>> app window. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You were the one who used the term "app window", not I. That's because I was replying to someone who was talking about the app window in Windows. Try reading in context next time. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > There's no resizeable app window in the Mac OS; there are document > windows. My wife's "Solitaire Till Dawn X.app". You start the program, you get one window. You kill the window, the app quits. I can't think what document I would associat with it; I'd have to think of it as an app window, not a document window. I can't remember for sure if it is resizable; I assume it is, but its possible you'd have me there. > > There's no resizeable app window in the Mac OS; there are document > > windows. > > My wife's "Solitaire Till Dawn X.app". You start the program, you > get one window. You kill the window, the app quits. Did you read the entire thread? I already addressed those rare situations where an app can have only one window, and the app quits when the window closes. Regardless, this is not an application window in the sense that MS Windows apps have application windows, and the document windows are contained by the application windows, and can't move out of them. But you can save games and open them with this application, so the window is a document window, although there can be only one document open at a time. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > >> The very obvious physical appearance of an additional button on your > >> laptop would be a tacit admission of defeat to the high and honorable [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Quit button in it to close the app it belongs to? I'm no GUI programmer, > but I find that hard to accept. It would be, at best, a case of gilding the lily. Since the active application *always* includes a quit function in the application menu at the top of the screen, such a button would be unneccesary. Worse, it would be a way to quit the application by accident if you missed and hit it instead of the minimize/close/maximize buttons at the top of the document window. (Putting it somewhere else on the document window would be even more clunky.) > I'm new to the Mac platform, just got my iMac last Friday. Welcome! (snip goofy rant) > Hence, the Mighty Mouse! It looks like a one-button mouse. Out of my iMac > box, it is! But concealed from the view of the casual observer, it's really > the dreaded two-button mouse that originated in the castles of Redmond! Umm, I think if you do a bit of research you'll find that multi-button pointing devices were available long before Windows and were not created by Microsoft. The two-button mouse was adopted for Windows because there are so many functions not available through any other method, including keystrokes. Mac OS never had that problem, but System 7 supported multi-button mice if you felt you really needed one. Most multi-button mice are butt ugly. The Apple multi-button mouse is designed the way it is because it's elegant. If you prefer a clunky, ugly multi-button mouse, there are plenty of them available to you, and they'll work as soon as you plug them in. The multi-buttonness of the MightMouse was never a secret. (snip more goofy rant) > a Quit button in our application windows or a "back" > button in Finder! There is a Quit button: command-Q. Far too many Windows apps don't even support this simple quit button and require you to use a mouse to close the window. The finder has had a "back" button for eight years now. Hopefully you'll learn a little more about your iMac and Mac OSX. There are aspects of them that are different from Windows and PC hardware. You could spend a lot of time fighting them and trying to force them to work like Windows, but you'd be better off accepting the change. It really is for the better. SignatureBream Rockmetteler Donaldson's Dog Joy 509-540-0301 > > I'm new to the Mac platform, just got my iMac last Friday. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > a Quit button in our application windows or a "back" > > button in Finder! There is also a back button in Finder windows, and that's not counting its Undo function. Bream needs to swim in the sea of the GUI a bit more, perhaps. > There is a Quit button: command-Q. Far too many Windows apps don't even > support this simple quit button and require you to use a mouse to close [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > work like Windows, but you'd be better off accepting the change. It > really is for the better. >>> a Quit button in our application windows or a "back" >>> button in Finder! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bream needs to swim in the sea of the GUI a bit more, perhaps. Perhaps... there's always more to learn! But, if you read below, you'll see I've already swum that lap. I may have snipped too much of the OP, so it might not have been clear that the above statement was the OP's request and my reply was below. >> There is a Quit button: command-Q. Far too many Windows apps don't even >> support this simple quit button and require you to use a mouse to close >> the window. The finder has had a "back" button for eight years now. SignatureBream Rockmetteler Donaldson's Dog Joy 509-540-0301 >> I'm new to the Mac platform, just got my iMac last Friday. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > method, including keystrokes. Mac OS never had that problem, but System > 7 supported multi-button mice if you felt you really needed one. Never saw a two button mouse except for Windoze, but I'll take your word for it. Windoze has always been keystroke poor, one of it's many shortcomings. > Most multi-button mice are butt ugly. The Apple multi-button mouse is > designed the way it is because it's elegant. If you prefer a clunky, > ugly multi-button mouse, there are plenty of them available to you, and > they'll work as soon as you plug them in. As I've done. Well, actually, a two button trackball, which I prefer. But I'm a believer in form following function, not the other way around. And I certainly don't believe that Apple couldn't design a nice looking two button mouse. I mean, it's just another button! > The multi-buttonness of the MightMouse was never a secret. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > work like Windows, but you'd be better off accepting the change. It > really is for the better. Not fighting it at all, just observing the differences and commenting. I'm learning the Leopard OS, and so far, I like it. There are many nuances that are obviously superior to Windoze. At the same time, there are convenient features of Windoze that, if incorporated into OSX, would make it even better. And I think there's obviously some NIH going on in Cupertino. > > Mac OS never had that problem, but System 7 supported multi-button > > mice if you felt you really needed one. > Never saw a two button mouse except for Windoze, but I'll take your > word for it. Windoze has always been keystroke poor, one of it's many > shortcomings. Well, Apple didn't make a two-button mouse until Mighty Mouse, but it did support them in the OS since, as Bream wrote, System 7. Third-party companies made two-button mouses for the Mac. And starting with the original iMac, all USB mouses work with the Mac, even if they are ostensibly built for Windows. > I'm a believer in form following function, not the other way around. > And I certainly don't believe that Apple couldn't design a nice > looking two button mouse. I mean, it's just another button! Apple has a nice-looking two-button mouse; it's the Mighty Mouse (available as USB or Bluetooth). It just looks like a one-button mouse with a scroll ball. Actually, it's a four-button mouse; the scroll ball is also a button, and there's a button on the sides of the mouse. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > all USB mouses... "Mouses"? Signature<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods. <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude > > all USB mouses... > > "Mouses"? Biological ones are mice; computer ones are mouses. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > > all USB mouses... > > > > "Mouses"? > > Biological ones are mice; computer ones are mouses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouse_(computing) Okay, in all fairness, the plural is listed here as "mice, mouse devices, or mouses", but I'm going to go on record is stating that's just because so many people used the wrong word that it became common usage. So there! Signature<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods. <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude > > > all USB mouses... > > > > "Mouses"? > > Biological ones are mice; computer ones are mouses. I use that standard as well. SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR >>> all USB mouses... >> >> "Mouses"? > > Biological ones are mice; computer ones are mouses. Never heard that one before! Are you Apple people smoking something? :) > > Biological ones are mice; computer ones are mouses. > > Never heard that one before! Are you Apple people smoking something? :) *I* cringe when I see that usage, and I've been using Macs since 1988. Signature<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods. <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude >>> Mac OS never had that problem, but System 7 supported multi-button >>> mice if you felt you really needed one. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > with a scroll ball. Actually, it's a four-button mouse; the scroll ball > is also a button, and there's a button on the sides of the mouse. Yes, but unfortunately, one of the worst mice I've ever used. I know that pointing devices are very personal, one man's ceiling is another man's floor, but I tried it for a week, and now have scrapped it for my Logitech Orbital Trackball. Not my favorite pointing device, but way better than an MM. And I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. > >>> Mac OS never had that problem, but System 7 supported multi-button > >>> mice if you felt you really needed one. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Orbital Trackball. Not my favorite pointing device, but way better than an > MM. And I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. I agree it could be shaped better, but it's a great concept. I use a bluetooth one at work (although it eats batteries). The main advantage is that it has a scroll ball, so I can scroll in both directions in a window (even Excel supports it), even a window which does not have focus. Meanwhile, at the same time, I'm moving the mouse towards the part of the doc where I want it to be. I find this really ups my productivity compared to when (such as on the XP lappy I have to use as well. Its a step above a scroll wheel mouse, just as a mouse with no scroll wheel is even worse. > >>> Mac OS never had that problem, but System 7 supported multi-button > >>> mice if you felt you really needed one. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Orbital Trackball. Not my favorite pointing device, but way better than an > MM. And I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. I LOVE the MS Intellimouses and Razer mouses. But I can't stand the Apple Mighty Mouse - it's just not the right shape for my hand and the scroll ball is forever collecting crud. Regards, Jamie Kahn Genet SignatureIf you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. > Yes, but unfortunately, one of the worst mice I've ever used. I know that > pointing devices are very personal, one man's ceiling is another man's > floor, but I tried it for a week, and now have scrapped it for my Logitech > Orbital Trackball. Not my favorite pointing device, but way better than an > MM. And I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. That's for sure. I really can't stand the MM either and use a Kensington instead. It's good there are so many decent options. OTOH, I just love the newer aluminum keyboard--- best one I've ever used. Some don't care for the design. Madeleine > > Apple has a nice-looking two-button mouse; it's the Mighty Mouse > > (available as USB or Bluetooth). It just looks like a one-button mouse [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Orbital Trackball. Not my favorite pointing device, but way better than an > MM. And I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. Personally, I love the Mighty Mouse - for everything but fast-paced FPS gaming. I am simply addicted to the scroll ball - it's so convenient! I don't why, but I don't have many problems with the scroll ball getting clogged. The shape of the mouse doesn't bother me all, but then I suspect a lot of folks hold their mice in such a way that shape has more of an impact on them. SignatureNote: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter. JR >> Apple has a nice-looking two-button mouse; it's the Mighty Mouse >> (available as USB or Bluetooth). It just looks like a one-button mouse [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Orbital Trackball. Not my favorite pointing device, but way better than an > MM. And I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. Kensington's Expert Mouse is the best trackball I've ever used, with a scroll ring and everything. > > Now that the MacBook Pro is capable of running Windows XP and Vista > > operating systems, when will Apple introduce a laptop which will have an [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the dreaded two-button mouse that originated in the castles of Redmond! The > horrors! This analysis falls down for several reasons, not least being that the multi-button mouse predates Windows and the Lisa, and the historical evidence clearly indicates that Steve Jobs has no particular aversion to multi-button mice. Apple's engineers were aware of multiple buttons and consciously rejected them. The reason the Mac continued to come with a mouse that had (or was by default configured to behave like it had) a single button before Steve was given the boot, after he was given the boot, and after he came back (despite spending the intervening years heading a company that shipped and supported multi-button mice on their systems) is that in the context of the whole Mac UI a single button a single button is objectively superior. Supporting multiple buttons, as Apple has done for many years, is entirely appropriate because many people *like* them (and a relative handful of applications truly benefit from them) but I'll be quite surprised if you see Apple actually encouraging multi-button use in the near future unless they also decide that the whole UI needs to be rethought. Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix >>> Now that the MacBook Pro is capable of running Windows XP and Vista >>> operating systems, when will Apple introduce a laptop which will have an [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > near future unless they also decide that the whole UI needs to be > rethought. You know the history better than I, do I'll bow to your knowledge there. As for not many apps benefiting from a two button mouse, I'd strongly disagree. If you have to use the mouse, as in many instances you do, particularly for graphics based apps, the contextual menus available at a right-click are a huge boon to the user. Far less mousing about, selecting menus or icons. Obviously, since Mac OSs have been incorporating them more and more, even Apple agrees to this. IOW, I'll let go of my two button mouse/trackball when they pry my cold, dead hands from it! :) > > The reason the Mac continued to come with a mouse that had (or was by > > default configured to behave like it had) a single button before Steve [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > particularly for graphics based apps, the contextual menus available at a > right-click are a huge boon to the user. Nope. You'll disbelieve me, but when I said "objectively superior" I meant "_objectively_ superior." As in proven not only repeatedly but without verifiable exception. There's a huge subjective preference for context menus, but *in the context of the Mac UI* contextual menus are ultimately detrimental to efficiency and effectiveness, and as a result any mechanism that encourages their use is a loss. Context menus are a HUGE win over window-based menus, and since non-Mac users are primarily familiar with window-hosted menus, contextual menus are legitimate wins in their experience. You may have noticed that in Mac OS the application menu is rooted on the desktop. That changes the equation significantly. > Far less mousing about, selecting > menus or icons. Obviously, since Mac OSs have been incorporating them more > and more, even Apple agrees to this. Obviously, since Apple strongly recommends that developers not make contextual menus the *only* way to access a given command, they don't. What they acknowledge (and have done since 1987) is that they're popular and there should be standard ways to implement them rather than relying on the hodgepodge that would otherwise occur. > IOW, I'll let go of my two button mouse/trackball when they pry my cold, > dead hands from it! :) For me, 3 is the magic number. Three *real* buttons, with no wheel or scrollball to be seen. Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix >>> The reason the Mac continued to come with a mouse that had (or was by >>> default configured to behave like it had) a single button before Steve [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > in their experience. You may have noticed that in Mac OS the application > menu is rooted on the desktop. That changes the equation significantly. Interesting. Can you elaborate? Why is that so? I need to know, because if using contextual menus is actually slowing me down on this platform, I will avoid their use, though that will be difficult at first. >> Far less mousing about, selecting >> menus or icons. Obviously, since Mac OSs have been incorporating them more [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > For me, 3 is the magic number. Three *real* buttons, with no wheel or > scrollball to be seen. I like as many buttons as I can access, which depends on the device itself. I particularly like a scrollwheet, which is the thing I miss the most with my Logitech Orbital Trackball. So far, the only ideal pointing device I've used was a Kensington Trackball. But they're going for $115 these days, and since I don't make my living at my home computer anymore, I can hardly justify that kind of expense. > >>> The reason the Mac continued to come with a mouse that had (or was by > >>> default configured to behave like it had) a single button before Steve [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > using contextual menus is actually slowing me down on this platform, I will > avoid their use, though that will be difficult at first. Responding to the last part first: Why? It works for you, you're comfortable with it, and you're not *feeling* harm so why go out of your way to make yourself uncomfortable? As to what makes it different: When you're aiming for a target with the mouse the two primary factors that come into play are the size of the target (how hard it is to overshoot) and the distance. The benefit of the effectively infinite size of the menu bar on the Mac overwhelms the distance you have to travel to get there, even on today's large and irregular displays. It may not forever, as screen real estate continues to increase, but for now it does. Additionally, you can root the mouse relative to the Mac's menu bar with a single flick of your wrist, making the subsequent motion to select any given menu item consistent from one invocation to the next. The proponents of contextual menus argue that their benefit is comparable to the screen rooted menu because while the size is much smaller the travel distance is zero. The problem is, the travel distance is not reliably zero. If you invoke the contextual menu near the bottom or right edge of the screen you end up with it offset. Worse, "near" isn't even a consistent value in that last sentence because it's defined by the number of items and the width of the longest item relevant to the current context. The result is that in relative terms context menus as currently implemented on every major OS are substantially slower to use than screen-rooted menus. There are experimentally known enhancements that reduce the deficit, but none so far that eliminate it completely. But, to go back to the first paragraph, comfort is a huge issue. I wouldn't recommend that someone who prefers to use context menus make a real effort to retrain themselves. I just get a little fidgety about seeing Steve Jobs' ego used as a scapegoat for *every* design decision someone doesn't agree with, when it's really only the cause of about 70% of them. ;) > >> IOW, I'll let go of my two button mouse/trackball when they pry my cold, > >> dead hands from it! :) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > since I don't make my living at my home computer anymore, I can hardly > justify that kind of expense. I've actually got a really strange quirk about mice. I only use 1- or 3-button mice on Macs. I only use 2-button mice on Windows. On the rare occasions where I find myself using a 2-button mouse on a Mac my brain switches into Windows mode (despite all the evidence staring out at me from the screen) and I get slowed down quite a bit as I readjust my expectations. Screwy things like looking for a "Properties" item at the bottom of the context menu instead of a "Get Info" item near the top. I don't use wheels because I have yet to find one that's actually comfortable (by which I mean "not actively painful for me") to use. And despite what some people tell me, I can't "just ignore it" because they're too obtrusive. The ball in the Apple Mighty Mouse doesn't get in my way too badly, but as noted in another post I have a hard time right-clicking the MM. Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix >>>>> The reason the Mac continued to come with a mouse that had (or was by >>>>> default configured to behave like it had) a single button before Steve [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > someone doesn't agree with, when it's really only the cause of about 70% > of them. ;) LOL! >>>> IOW, I'll let go of my two button mouse/trackball when they pry my cold, >>>> dead hands from it! :) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > my way too badly, but as noted in another post I have a hard time > right-clicking the MM. I can make it work just fine, and I don't mind the shape a bit as others seem to. I just find the buttons very dead compared with the very nice click I get with a good mouse, or better yet, a good trackball like a Kensington. And the tiny scroll bead seems like it's rolling in broken glass! > The benefit of > the effectively infinite size of the menu bar on the Mac overwhelms the > distance you have to travel to get there, even on today's large and > irregular displays. YMMV. On mine, it takes more than a single flick of the mouse to get to the menu bar. That said, yes, screen-based menus are by far the easiest menus to aim at and hit what you expect to hit. I'm not certain that's the best measure, though it may be the measure by which they are most clearly "objectively superior". The missing half of the discussion here about contextual menus, however, as we've discussed before, is the selection problem. Not everything which has a contextual menu is able to be selected. If you can't select it, you can't then operate on it via the standard menus. Try, say, saving an image you see on a web page without them. This isn't necessarily a problem of multi-button or single-button mice, nor even necessarily of contextual menus though I've yet to see any more elegant a solution to it than contextual menus. Especially since sometimes a single objects may be either clicked *or* selected and no matter how you slice that, you're going to have to have two ways of hitting it with the mouse, if not a right-click (and/or context menu) than a keyboard modifier or some other ugly form of multi-click? SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting > > The benefit of > > the effectively infinite size of the menu bar on the Mac overwhelms the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > then operate on it via the standard menus. Try, say, > saving an image you see on a web page without them. I do it routinely, by dragging the image from the window into a Finder view. Never occurred to me to use the context menu for that. But point taken. G Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix > I particularly like a scrollwheet, which is the thing I miss the most with my > Logitech Orbital Trackball. My Logitech Trackman has two buttons and a scroll wheel that is also a third button, which summons Expose. It drives me crazy when I have to use my wife's G5 with a one-button mouse. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. >> I particularly like a scrollwheet, which is the thing I miss the most with my > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > button, which summons Expose. It drives me crazy when I have to use my > wife's G5 with a one-button mouse. I had one of those for a while, worked ok. But I prefer moving the trackball with my fingers rather than my thumb, particularly for fine work. That's one of the reasons I like the Kensington. > >> I particularly like a scrollwheet, which is the thing I miss the most with > >> my [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > trackball with my fingers rather than my thumb, particularly for fine work. > That's one of the reasons I like the Kensington. And many, if not most, Kensingtons have a five year warranty. > > [Contextual menus...] > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and there should be standard ways to implement them rather than relying > on the hodgepodge that would otherwise occur. Unfortunately Apple themselves have been breaking that rule for a while now. Unless someone can show me a way of doing "Show Package Contents" in Finder without using a contextual menu (just to take one example). SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > > > [Contextual menus...] > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > now. Unless someone can show me a way of doing "Show Package Contents" > in Finder without using a contextual menu (just to take one example). No GUI method I know of. I've reported that as a bug and they've invoked the "power user" mantra. Of course, Apple's been violating the HIG since before the HIG was a standalone document. And, IMO, they should because sometimes 3rd-party developers need a kick in the pants that the 'G' stands for 'guidelines' rather than 'grules which must be obeyed without question.' But some of their deviations are more gratuitous than others. This one's around the middle of the pack, IMO. On the other hand, given Finder's habit of creating .DS_Store files anywhere it visits, I almost always use Terminal to go inside packages anyway. Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix > No GUI method I know of. I've reported that as a bug and they've invoked > the "power user" mantra. Of course, Apple's been violating the HIG since Go to Folder will do it. It isn't easy, but it is possible to open packages without the context menu. >>> [Contextual menus...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > now. Unless someone can show me a way of doing "Show Package Contents" > in Finder without using a contextual menu (just to take one example). The Action menu in the Finder's window has a 'Show Package Co |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message