Because it divorces what is arguably the main control menu of the application from the application itself. It is a similar problem to controls spread across multiple windows. It doesn't make any sense. It would be like driving down the road with your stereo controls rolling along next to you outside the car. Applications are single entities, they should stay single entities. The menu bar at the top of the window breaks this. Of course, it also means you must change to the right window first to access its menu controls, which is annoying. I regularly have multiple menu bars visible, and I can click straight on one without having to change focus to it first.

Also, it doesn't centralize the OS, there is no benefit at all. "Centralizing" comes from making all programs following a standard, and having the menu bar on each window is equally as "centralized" as having a single menu bar at the top. I would even contend that having the menu bar on each window is MORE centralized since you side-step the issue of the same action doing different things.




Because it is counter-intuitive. Throwing a CD away does not imply that you would get it back. You throw something away to get rid of it (or delete it), not to get it back. Of course, software ejection itself is rather useless. It is easier to simply push the button to eject it, since you have to reach towards the drive to grab the ejected CD to begin with, so doing a software eject first is a wasted effort on all platforms.

once, since they remember where they should be which most people do with photoshop anyway.


REALLLLYY? you think thats less cluttered than GIMP? they can't even figure out where to put the buttons (i'll give you a hint: next to the window decorations is NOT it) or use native theming....on the subject of window decorations wtf are those hideous gray circles?


3 clicks instead of 1. the horror.....are you sure your mouse speed is high enough?


....which is where they are on every other OS too....and you'll note that unlike other OS's, OS X only requires a single menubar for every window in your application.


you don't.... as soon as the CD icon starts moving there's a clearly marked eject icon waiting to receive it. and of course you could also just push the eject key on the keyboard which has the exact same markings, or click the eject icon next to the drive in the finder.



clearly deluded by having used window-centric and not application-centric operating systems your whole life. it takes all of 15 seconds to adapt to "apple-q" instead of moving your mouse. http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2009/01/dock-and-windows-7-taskbar.ars


ever tried dragging stuff around on windows and been like "crap, gotta open up a new window, or minimize/unminize, or move these 3 other windows out of the way first" Don't lie. That's how using Windows is. OS X is smart enough that you can do all your switching while you're dragging, and windows and folders are all spring loaded to drop to the front as soon as they detect something wants to be dropped into them.


Applications are single entities, hence being able to bring ALL the windows of an application to the forefront by clicking its dock icon, and having a single menu. Documents however are multiple entities. And shouldn't all be crammed together. A better example would be having a single commander for a whole squadron of F-16s

That is a 300% increase in user interaction And, of course, you can't resize by "clicking". Lets see you do 3 "clicks" to have GIMP take up just half of the screen. In Windows (7, anyway) that is a simple win+left/right away, but not with GIMP thanks to its multiple windows. I can also just drag to the side of the screen I want it on - but again, not with GIMP since it is multiple windows.



No, they aren't. Have you ever used an OS other than OS X? For EVERY OS other than OS X, the menu bar is at the top of the WINDOW, not the top of the screen. Thus, the menu bar is represented as a part of the application (which it is), not as part of the OS (which it isn't). You aren't saving screen space by having the menu bar at the top of the screen, you are violating logical constraints and, again, increasing the number of clicks to accomplish the same task.

I'm sensing a pattern here, you seem to really like doing way more clicking and mouse movements than necessary



FALSE. It is OS X violating logical and physical constraints (violating expected behavior dictated by the REAL WORLD). If I close the last window of an application, it is logical that I just closed the application (as I can no longer see it). It is the same in the real world. If I demolish a McDonalds ("close" it), you can no longer buy food from it - it no longer exists. It also, again, forces you to increase your number of interactions.



None of those are true. In windows, when you are dragging, you can drag over a window and drop onto it when its partially visible. You can also drag it over the task bar and bring that window to the front. Again, have you ever used anything other than OS X?



But windows ARE applications. Having multiple windows work together to accomplish one task (such as GIMP) is a constraint failure. I don't turn on my coffee machine to start my car. Windows are logically independent from each other. The OS adapting and bringing all the windows to the foreground (which is what happens for the GIMP in windows and linux as well, so stop trying to say that GIMP's design isn't broken if you use OS X ) doesn't change the fact that it is still breaking constraints.

And your example doesn't work, by the way. It would be closer to to a squadron of random planes (after all, GIMP windows aren't the same), with cause and effect being broken (causes in one plane have no effects in that plane, with other planes experiencing effects with no cause)

Just to jump in and play devil's advocate for a sec:
What about dialog boxes and open/save windows and options windows and the like? Are those their own applications then? Windows groups them all under the same taskbar tab and forces them to focus together, but they're still independently movable and in their own GUI layer, thus making them windows in their own right.

True, but dialogs also don't have menu bars. Dialogs also sit on top of their parent, making them a clear subset of the application in question. A stack, so to speak. Dialogs also open in response to user action, and are of limited life. Also, I wouldn't call them independent since dialogs lock you out of the parent. You don't manipulate a dialog and the parent window at the same time, thus preventing the issue.

I used primarily System 7 + Mac OS 7 from early 1993 through 1997, Mac OS 8 for 2 years or so, and then used Mac OS 9 with a healthy (or unhealthy, depending on how you interpret it) mix of Windows 98 and 2000 thrown in through around 2004. Around that point, I began using primarily OS X 10.3 and Windows XP, with frequent Linux interactions until February of 2008, when I our old iMac G3 started to die, and from then, until late 2008 I used primarily XP and a mix of Xfce4 and GNOME on various Ubuntu Linux systems. Since fall of 2007 I have also spent considerable time working with a KDE 3 interface on lab computers running SLED. I'm currently splitting my time between OS X 10.5, Vista Ultimate, and Ubuntu.
http://flickr.com/photos/32258331@N07/sets/72157614311463586/


fixed that for you Seriously, I've used pretty much every common desktop environment for the last 15 years, with at least some regularity (yes I've used Windows 3.1, 95 and ME too), with the exception of KDE 4, and still prefer the application-centric model.


I don't really use the mouse at all, except to drag things around occasionally, painting in GIMP, and to click the links + form buttons on web pages, and occasional multitouch gestures to flick things around my screen.


you can still see it, the menu bar is there to perform actions with it, the dock icon is still selected to let you know its still running, and I can even alt-tab to it and bring it to the front. Your example doesn't work, demolishing an application would be erasing it for your hard drive, quitting it would be like closing up for the day. but as long as its open, it doesn't matter if one or two registers are closed, or the drive through is closed, you can still order from one of the other registers, go to the bathroom, or sit at a table and eat your food.


when things are maximized or in the way, it's not gonna be partially visible, or if it is, the part of the window you need to drop into may not be visible.


nope, they're documents.


you can have a coffee machine that fills 3 or 4 coffee pots though and even though the coffee pots are independent entities, the coffee machine can keep the water hot when none of them are there.



no? clicking on one window in the taskbar, at least in GNOME and Windows does not bring the whole application's group forward.


wtf? all the planes have the same mission, and work together to carry out the mission, under the same command hierarchy.

With gimp clicking on any of the open documents brings it and the toolbox forward, almost as if the toolbox were a notification, but you can still access the main window. This is completely inconsistent with the rest of the OS's GUIs.


The windows brought forward may work towards the same mission but focusing one window should not bring another forward. Since they are working towards the same mission then they should be part of the same window. If gimp's toolbox were dockable ie. like pidgins buddy list it wouldn't be as bad but no, it is always in the way. You can't even full screen a gimp document window because then the toolbox gets in front of your work. You have to manually place the windows and adjust their sizes, and you have to repeat this for each new document.

I got it working, but the layout is different then I am use to, so I'm going to play around with it. by the way, did this just turn into an argument on whats better? Ouch why do I seem to spark controversy a lot...(that was rhetorical in case you were wondering)

And if you drag over its icon on the task bar it will bring that window to the front, allowing you to drag it wherever you want. And this has worked since at least XP. You can even drag near the bottom of a list and it will scroll. All of that fully works.



Correct, which is what I believe elf is saying it does for OS X as well (although he is confused and thinks this is OS X doing something fancy when in reality it isn't - again, its an application thing, not an OS thing)



Finally, someone else gets it. You also can't easily reposition or resize GIMP (like, say, to a second monitor)

Oh, and I apologize, that screenshot I posted of Photoshop is incorrect. I'm not sure what that is, but that is *NOT* the default photoshop layout.

Here are two other shots
This one is a bit small, and by default there is only the far right side bar, not the near right side bar.


This is an older version, but it shows what I mean about the right side bars


But really, just download the trial of photoshop and compare it to GIMP. Photoshop is far superior, no question. GIMP is good for free (aside from its retarded UI), but its no photoshop.

no, this is incorrect, though now I see why you didn't get what I was saying. OS X is *designed* for multi-window interfaces. Clicking on an application's icon in the dock (*any application*) or alt-tabbing to it automatically brings all of that application's windows to the front. In old-school Mac OS there was an application switcher in the upper right hand corner of the screen that did the same thing. The expose shortcuts give you the option to tile all windows on your current desktop, or only the windows of the top-most application, or all windows to the outside to expose the desktop.


again, how much time do you actually spend resizing windows vs actually working? On a 6 hour project (or heck, even a 2 minute project), you're gonna spend a max of what, 15 seconds resizing windows? its not a big deal.


not as bad, but still....wtf is that full-screen window/canvas thing. Even Microsoft does a better job of making native-looking OS X apps.
old-school Office X: http://reviews.cnet.com/i/so/pc/ji_7891811_7891812_pc_01.gif
this guy has too many toolbars turned on, but Office 2008: http://www.mfischer.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/office-2008-mac.jpg

now compare Photoshop CS4:
http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/software/detail-page/mac_composite_ui_int.jpg
which is more cluttered than my GIMP interface


I know Photoshop is a more powerful editor, though I've never had a project where I said "crap, I can't do this with GIMP, I'm gonna go get me a copy of Photoshop." I still prefer the GIMP interface. I've spent plenty of time using both, at least on XP (the only Mac photoshop I've spent time with is an old Mac-classic version, but I'm talking about photoshop in general).

Office for Windows can do the same thing, at least I can do it on this comp with Office XP. If you go to options and unchecke "Windows in taskbar" it will have one main window with the sub windows like you show in the screen shot of Office X, of course on windows you cannot see the desktop in the background but that's another story.

This is how I feel gimp should act it should have one main window with the open docs, toolbox and etc. within the main window, basically the same way Photoshop has it. You have two choices you either have one window per document and have all of the controls for the application within that window or you do one window with multiple docs within it. Its stupid to have the controls for an application outside its active window. Having the toolbox always on top of the document window is a crude hack it is just a way to get around the fact that the UI is poorly designed. They finally removed the toolbar from the toolbox window now if they made it so the toolbox were not its own window they would be set.

Again, no. It doesn't matter if OS X is designed to suck or just ended up that way, since we are talking about GIMP here. Bringing all the windows to the front at once (which is what GIMP does on *EVERY GODDAMN OS*) doesn't change the fact that its a terrible interface. Having spacing between windows introduces a busy background (such as that of, say, firefox or winamp or whatever else is running) which is distracting and annoying. Multiwindow interfaces only work when nothing else is open - which is generally never.



Quite frequently, actually. I heavily multitask, and shift windows around often. For applications that don't have crappy interfaces, this isn't a problem. For example, I can take a full screen app, and in a single motion have it switch from one monitor to the other - not possible in gimp. I can have an app maximize to half the screen in one keyboard shortcut, but not GIMP.



That would be an interface that actually works. I realize since you primarily work on OS X you don't see too many of those.



When native == a huge PIA to work with, I would take a non-native looking app any day.



lol what? Are you blind? That photoshop interface is less than half the size of the GIMP one with far fewer controls, yet it is somehow more cluttered? Jesus, man, what the hell are you on?



Perhaps, but I would much rather use the even weaker Paint.NET over GIMP just because GIMP's interface sucks so bad.

So you stick it on its own desktop or minimize other things.

honestly, this sounds like a problem with your usage habits, I generally have between 5 and 10 apps open, each with a couple windows at any given time. If I'm on a low resource machine, I'm only gonna have a couple apps open at the same time anyway (say, firefox, IM client, maybe GIMP), and firefox will be minimized (and thus undistracting when I'm painting. On any other platform I'm just gonna configure a desktop for each set of tasks that I'm working on. Right now I have one for iTunes, one for development, one for browsing + email, and one for image editing. Adium is docked to the side of all of them. A single key press (well two technically, but simultaneous) puts whatever I want on top. no need for dragging stuff around.


if you're that OCD than you can just use GIMPshop normal people, though, instead of sitting down on a tack and hopping from cheek to cheek every 15 seconds, just place the tack where they want it once, and get on with life.


no, a huge PIA is when the whole system works one way, and is automagically interoperable with every other app (in all the little ways that matter), and one company decides to ignore the standard HIG because of NIH syndrome. I realize you're used to Vista which ignores its own interface guidelines without even having to get into 3rd party apps, and Linux which doesn't *have* a standard user interface, but I'd think someone detail-oriented as yourself would appreciate things always working the same way
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20080531/windows-ui-taskforce-your-help-wanted/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/129410-1/article.html?tk=nl_dnxnws



there are what? 4 floating tool dialogs in that screenshot, 2 of which are obscuring the picture that's being working on and will need to be dragged around.

So your solution for GIMP's bad design is for me to just deal with it and stop complaining? Screw that. Then again, I guess years of drinking Apple's kool aid where disagreeing with an Apple decision (no matter how brain dead) is a huge no-no has drained you of your ability to think for yourself



The problem is that GIMP's design needlessly causes problems with people with usage habits like mine (heavy multitaskers). Switching to docking windows or MDI makes everyone happy, using multiple windows just makes masochists like yourself happy.

Oh, and I hate multiple desktops. Even *MORE* user actions to accomplish a task. Why do you insist on making everything harder and more complicated? Then again, I guess that is the Mac way - more clicks and actions to do the same thing, because its easier!



GIMPshop just renames things and changes keyboard shortcuts, it doesn't fix the GUI (it can't - GTK doesn't support MDI)



Its more that I need to look something up, change songs, answer an email/IM, or refresh the page to see if I like the changes I made (when I use GIMP its almost always for web work) when I'm working.



You do realize that GIMP isn't following the Apple HIG at all, right? That was never a priority or design influence.

And again, I'd take an app that has a better UI than one that follows the system's HIG any day. That is, after all, how progress is made. I realize that coming from a Mac you aren't familiar with progress, so I'll let that one slide.



And cluttered is most definitely not the word to describe that NON STANDARD photoshop. If you are going to compare photoshop to GIMP in terms of interface, you have to at least use a standard photoshop setup (as in the default). Had you ever actually USED photoshop you would have known that

We're getting off topic

Mac Reference, FTW. Or is this also a Linux feature?

You can dock the tool bars on the side of the screen, pressing tab hides said toolbars and hovering mouse on left and right shows the toolbar on that side. It's how I work in PhotoShop.

like I was saying if you use a Mac, where its implemented correctly, multiple desktops adds no steps at all certainly less than alt-tabbing, or rummaging in the task bar. Had you ever actually used -P-h-o-t-o-s-h-o-p- Spaces in OS X you'd know that. If you had ever used a Mac, you would know that everything Apple designs is centered on reducing complexity and button pushing.

example:
Media Center remote: http://ak.buy.com/db_assets/large_images/843/204793843.jpg
Front Row remote: http://pcwizcomputer.com/weaksauce12/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/appleremote.jpg


it does enable docking windows, on Windows at least.


use Gnome Do (the linux equivalent for Quicksilver) for all of those (assuming it supports the same range of actions as quicksilver) except the refresh, which should be 2 keypresses. command-4 brings firefox to the top, command-r refreshes.


GIMP is an X11 app, so its automatically out, but OS X in general is based around multiple windows per application. Anything that's compiled to use Aqua + Quartz should be following Apple HIG.


which defeats the purpose of having an HIG....


You are using Windows at the moment right? the operating system that, last I checked, still has relics from 1992 hanging around in the registry, and *still* needs twunk_16.exe? Or Linux, which took 16 years to get to an arguably consumer useable desktop? As opposed to Mac's which have switched processor architecture twice, abandoned their entire OS once in favor of a better design, and developed the first real compositing window manager? You'll also notice that there aren't any "Vista conversion kits" for OS X (talking about UI here), whereas there are plenty of "Mac conversion kits" for both Windows and Linux, because OS X is always on the forefront of UI design.


that's the picture that was being used to advertise the "advanced" UI for CS4.

Reducing complexity at the cost of pushing more buttons. That is how it works. Multiple windows *ALWAYS* increases the number of user actions to manipulate windows, there is absolutely NO way to avoid it. It is impossible.

As for those two remote comparisons, that just shows how hard Apple fails. Apple's remote doesn't let you do anything except adjust playback. Lets see you, say, go from channel 5 to channel 50 with that Apple remote - its only 45 button pushes away!



I'll have to look into it then. Last time I saw it it was just a menu and shortcut replacement.



Uh, no. Gnome Do / Quicksilver / Launchy requires *gasp* MORE ACTIONS TO DO THE SAME THING. So please stop trying to force me to work slower. I realize that that is the Mac way (easier to use == slower), but knock it off already, its getting old.



So why are you talking about Apple's HIG again? They are, of course, irrelevant in this.



To have all apps use the same crappy UI design? Wow, that HIG sucks.



At the moment, since I just stopped playing TF2 and am about to move on to Lost Planet. Oh wait, I'm sorry, you don't HAVE games, thats right. Ouch.



Good thing that has nothing to do with UI, right?



Completely false. Linux has been a useable desktop system for a very, very long time now. At *LEAST* 10 years.



Because Apple was wrong, correct.



Because Apple couldn't figure out how to write a kernel, so they "borrowed" one, correct.



About time they finally started using the GPU in their systems for something.



Yeah, and? The masses are retarded and Apple is a fad. People also spend $5 on a cup of coffee every day (same crowd that buys Apple products - coincidence? I think not)



False. The mac conversion kits just make windows and linux *look* like OS X, not behave like OS X. See, the masses like the look, but not the functionality. Forefront of UI design my ass.

Then again, most of the Macbooks I see are running Windows, not OS X, so even though Apple is a fad at the moment, people still don't want to actually USE their OS.



And for some it is advanced and preferable. Just like some people prefer OpenBox or xmonad.

granted, Front Row isn't for watching broadcast stations, but presumably if it was, they'd use a scrollwheel, like an iPod. *tada* no button pushes away, just a few thumb wiggles.


Let me emphasize my point.


please explain this concept.



I remember trying to set up Mandriva even 5 years ago.



Or because they aren't scared of gradually killing backwards compatibility, unlike Microsoft, who like I said, still has relics from the 3.1 days hanging around in the OS.

for the record, Jobs was in charge of NeXT, and just reabsorbed his own OS when he went back to Apple.



actually, I'm fairly sure the point of dock, expose, and the "objectbar" for windows are to give windows user mac-like behavior.
also lay off the "Omgsheeples" kool aid, it's slightly obnoxious without making any real points.


Actually, nearly everyone I talk to, even "hard-core" Vista users, say they'd prefer to use OS X if all their software would run on it.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/software/games
May not be a great list but we have COD, Prey, Jedi Knight, Star Wars Battlefront, Battlefield 2142 and my favourite, Spore. We do have games worth playing though all are also available to Windows usrers.

Fine, how about switching audio channels, enabling subtitles, or any other of the myrid of functionaility that the windows remote exposes that apple's remote doesn't?

Face it, when you simplify an interface there are two options: Either A, make it require more actions to accomplish a goal, or B (and this one is Apple's favorite) cut out a bulk of the feature set.



Having used them I can tell you with certainty that they do.



No I keep saying how terrible GIMP's is, with photoshop being an example of how to do it well (Paint.NET being another)



So of your 10 games, you only mention 2 by name, and those two are running on VISTA? Wow, good counter there.



Simple - that has nothing to do with the discussion, which has been UI focused. But, if you want to know why its there, that is also simple. Backwards compatibility. It is something Apple has been able to avoid by remaining a niche market.



I stand by what I said, Linux has been consumer usable for at least 10 years. All of Ubuntu's most touted features are, in actuality, very, very old (such as apt-get)



It has NOTHING to do with Apple not being scared of killing backwards compatibility, its because there *ISN'T* anything to maintain. Look at how much shit Microsoft got with Vista when programs that weren't following guidelines that were 10 years old stopped working.

So fuck that argument, you can't have it both ways. MS has to maintain backwards compatibility or they get shit, yet somehow you are claiming that "Apple isn't scared" of breaking backwards compatibility. fuck no, that shit won't fly, since in the real world Microsoft has to take care of its customers, and Apple doesn't.

If Apple ever gets any real market share, they will face the exact same problem, and they will be forced to handle it in the exact same way (maintaining backwards compatibility). There just isn't another way. It has nothing to do *at all* with Apple being a leader, or revolutionary, or not scared. If you honestly believe that load of shit you just tried to shovel, then I'm done with this. I won't debate with an utter moron.



For the record, the kernel used is a bastardized BSD and Mach 3 hybrid. I figured you would know that.



But not the multi-window design guideline that you keep touting as somehow superior, which is the entire point of this discussion, that multi-window designs suck



Its also scarily true for a significant majority of Apple's customers.



And yet, at the end of the day they aren't using OS X. Everyone I talked to said they would also run Ubuntu if it behaved exactly like Windows