Untitled

SWITCH THE PLUS AND ARROWS

SWITCH THEM

use the keyboard retards
>You ever wonder why Chrome on Windows is excruciatingly slow when you close all the corresponding windows and open up a new tab?
It isn't

>It isn't
It is. Even on really good hardware. Chrome tends to hang for a while right after you open its first window, then it instantly becomes faster once it's up and running. But if it stays open in the background like it does in macOS and most Linux distros, that problem disappears until you manually quit the app.

Why would I want the default close button to put it in the background? If I want to use it again soon, I would minimize it. If I close it, I don't want it using resources. I'd rather take the 1-2 second startup.

>Why would I want the default close button to put it in the background?
For the benefit of fluidity. Good for if you open and 'close' programs frequently. Also means you don't have keep windows open unnecessarily if you want to keep a program running.
It's not like it's an extra step to actually "close" the program. All you have to do is hit cmd+q.
>If I want to use it again soon, I would minimize it.
Yeah but then you'd constantly have a window open regardless of whether or not you need it or if it would later become relevant for user continuity. Not the end of the world, but just unnecessary.
>If I close it, I don't want it using resources.
It wouldn't use a lot of memory unless you're actually doing something with it. When all the windows are closed, it just idles unless it's downloading or processing something.
>I'd rather take the 1-2 second startup.
OK.
But bump the 2 seconds up to 5 to make it more realistic.

What do you mean hang for a while? It used to open in less than a second with dozens of tabs when I still used windows, my hardware isn't even that good by today's standards. Maybe you don't have an ssd?

you use less energy when leaving programs open in the background rather than closing them and opening them repeatedly

>so that the next time you go to interact with it by opening a new window, it's not slow as fuck.
that's what ram is for

Chrome does run in the background after you close it on windows and linux by default, you have to disable it in settings if you dont want it. That's why it starts up fast after you have started it once (even after you close all tabs)

Fascinating. I've always seen the complaint that Chrome is near-frozen for about 5 seconds after closing all tabs, then functions normally. Even on Chrome OS, which is kind of ironic.

>close doesn't close
Because it's not close application -- it's close document.
in Windows, a window is an abstraction for an application, in which you open documents (think back to older Windows programs, like in pic related -- the window hosts an application, which in turns hosts more windows for its documents).
In Mac OS a window was JUST an abstraction for a document. The application itself was represented by an icon on the dock.
But recent versions of MacOS have fucked up this abstraction, and now it's a clusterfuck of a mess, where sometimes windows control the application behavior rather than just document behavior.
>maximize doesn't maximize
You're thinking of the old + symbol. Now it's been replaced by a double-arrow symbol. The double arrow symbol is now a "full screen" function.
But your confusion comes from the fact hat the + symbol was NOT "maximize" function. It was "fit" function -- it didn't maximize the application, it changed the window size to fit the document's content.
To be fair, a lot of cross-platform apps abused this. They tried to treat it like a maximize function, and just blew it up to fit the screen rather than providing the OS the right size to fit the document.
The Fit function is still available.

Attached: windows.png (694x531, 241K)

fucking love this meme

Which is why you keep it open in the background.
Some OS's keep necessary things in the background better than others. MacOS is way better at keeping applications you might use again in memory than Windows, IME (Windows is supposed to have gotten a lot better at this since Win10, but I haven't paid attention).
But in low-ram machines (ie. 8gb and less), there's a good chance the OS is going to overwrite the reserved memory for starting the app again. Keeping the application open in the background guarantees the application has preserved itself in memory to allow it to be functional again.

>That's why it starts up fast after you have started it once (even after you close all tabs)
i've never seen that. usually once you close all tabs it goes back to being slow again for a while

>Which is why you keep it open in the background.
so what you're saying is that osx's ram management sucks

the alt meme to maximize changed my life

thanks Jow Forums

Quite the exact opposite.
Retains fluidity, gives the user more in-depth control (which is quite unlike Apple), and is generally a more efficient way to function overall.

Opinion.

>having something open
>ram management
go back to your fruit board

>Retains fluidity,
Fact.
>gives the user more in-depth control
Fact.
>(which is quite unlike Apple),
Fact. Apple typically hates customization and giving users too much control.
>and is generally a more efficient way to function overall.
Fact. Conserves energy, eliminates initial boot lag, allows the user to decide when the app should die.

Where is the opinion?

>windows/linux
>close out of photoshop/gimp
>suddenly realize I need to have it open for something else
>takes ages to open even though it should still be in RAM

>mac OS
>running low on RAM
>close photoshop
>OS doesn't actually close it so I don't free up any RAM
>but at least photoshop opens quickly if I need it
Am I getting this right? I've never used Mac OS.

>I don't free memory to save up on battery
The mental gymnastic you shills go to will never cease to amuse.

>fact
Provide evidence.

This but he has a point on the way minimise works, I'm a tab/window hoarder that puts away things for later reading, so it's great that minimised windows don't appear when alt tabbing, on Windows alt tabbing becomes a quite a mess in this case

>suddenly realize I need to have it open for something else
>takes ages to open even though it should still be in RAM
If you open and close Photoshop very frequently, it'll stay frozen for a while instead of dying immediately after you close the program.

>OS doesn't actually close it so I don't free up any RAM
>but at least photoshop opens quickly if I need it
macOS will close it automatically if it's idle for far too long and nothing is unsaved.

Cmd+tabbing on a mac also opens up new window if you closed it, but it won't open the minimized windows. So minimized existing windows are considered unexisting, but windows that literally don't exist are considered existant.
MacOS is the most retarded operating system I have ever used.

that's why gnome is superior

it's basically like leaving your laptop on but sleeping whenever you're not using it instead of shutting it down and booting it up several times a day.

Why not just double click the title bar?

No mate, a fucking syscall to free memory is not like keeping your computer on. The amount of energy used can barely be measured. For fuck's sake, I hope they fire you for being such a bad shill.

>it'll stay frozen for a while instead of dying immediately after you close the program.
Dunno what you mean by that. I'm a dumbfuck who tries to be tidy by closing photoshop/gimp after I'm done with it but then realize I have another pic to edit all the time and it always takes ages to open even on good hardware and ssd.
>macOS will close it automatically if it's idle for far too long and nothing is unsaved.
So basically the program is closed but still in whatever free amount of RAM I have if I have any as I would like windows/linux to do?

>macfag
>blaming the population for macos' errors

Attached: 1528459447556.jpg (500x314, 16K)

Nope
>Windows press X or alt+4 to close ps
>Open ps again, opens in few seconds because some of it is still in RAM
>macos cmd+q to close ps
>Open ps again, opens in a few seconds because some of it is still in RAM
It's the same, it's just that macos gives you 3 different ways to minimize for different purposes

>>Windows press X or alt+4 to close ps
>>Open ps again, opens in few seconds because some of it is still in RAM
This is absolutely not true for me. Is there some setting I have to enable?

OK so basically if you open and close a program in rapid succession more than three times, it stays open but idle in the background instead of terminating the very second you close the last corresponding window. There's a 5-10 minute period where it stays 'alert' in the background so that if you need to reopen the program you just closed, it won't be so slow.
>So basically the program is closed but still in whatever free amount of RAM I have if I have any as I would like windows/linux to do?
Yes, but the "wait to kill" period is a lot longer and only takes affect if the program has been doing literally nothing for hours on end.

Fucking hell, those are some weird settings. Why do they not just keep closed programs in unused RAM space? I always hear about windows eating a lot of RAM being that it just has a bunch of stuff cached and if you need the RAM for something big it will automatically free some up, but I have a shitload of RAM that never seems to speed up the opening of my most used programs.

>Why do they not just keep closed programs in unused RAM space?
Because then they wouldn't be "closed" per se, would they? It would totally defeat the purpose by design.
>I have a shitload of RAM that never seems to speed up the opening of my most used programs.
Well processing speed typically isn't dependent entirely on RAM alone, obviously. Memory only dictates how many processes your computer can keep open simultaneously.

Nope -- if it's "reserved" RAM (by this, I mean you actually quit the app (not left it running in the dock)), it can be preserved in memory, but it really takes no extra time to overwrite it with something else if the OS decides it needs to use that RAM, except for a couple nanoseconds of overhead.

Windows does this now, too, but Macs have been much better at this up until Windows 10.

>Cmd+tabbing on a mac also opens up new window if you closed it
It doesn't, you need to cmd+n for new windows
>but it won't open the minimized windows.
Hold option when alt tabed on the minimised application.
Minimisation should be used for putting windows away, if you want to hide the window and go back to that window soon you should use cmd+h, if you don't need any of application's windows but you'll use that application soon you should cmd+w. I used to think that is retarded at first but it's great desu.

But it's true. By leaving it in RAM, the only energy you're using is refreshing the RAM, which is going to happen anyway. If you close it and bring it into RAM, you have to access the disc, do a lot of processing, etc.

BTW, all modern OS's try to keep programs in RAM as long as possible.

Get SSD

Buy more RAM.

> Why do they not just keep closed programs in unused RAM space?
All major OS's do.

>OK so basically if you open and close a program in rapid succession more than three times, it stays open but idle in the background instead of terminating the very second you close the last corresponding window. There's a 5-10 minute period where it stays 'alert' in the background so that if you need to reopen the program you just closed, it won't be so slow.
That's literally how any modern kernel works, MacOS just has a retarded way of doing it. Other OS's don't rush over to fill the memory with 0's the moment you kill a process, there would be no point.

>It doesn't, you need to cmd+n for new windows
It does. I can post evidence tomorrow if the thread is still up or you can test it yourself. Try Finder.
>Hold option when alt tabed on the minimised application.
I think you missed the point. I know how to open minimized windows. Read my post again.
>Minimisation should be used for putting windows away
I don't care what you think of how an interface should or shouldn't be using, opening new windows on Cmd+Tab, but keeping minimized ones down is stupid.

>But it's true. By leaving it in RAM, the only energy you're using is refreshing the RAM, which is going to happen anyway. If you close it and bring it into RAM, you have to access the disc, do a lot of processing, etc.
Except no kernel in the last decade clears RAM as soon as a process is killed, you moron. MacOS simply doesn't kill the process, you can check this by running top. It has nothing to do with RAM, just with keeping the process on. You can kill a process and keep its files in RAM, it's called a cache. Read a book.
You retards barely know how an OS works, yet you think your opinion has some value to it.

>Try Finder.
It focuses on Finder, that's it, you can select bunch of things from global menu, to open a new window cmd+n
>but keeping minimized ones down is stupid.
Let's say you have 10 windows open, but you don't actively need 8 of them so you minimized them, now alt tabbing to that application only shows 2 windows, it's great.

You fuckwits have no idea about this shit and it's bothering my assburgers.
1) All major OS's cache in RAM. In windows, this is "Standby" and "Cached" memory. In MacOS it's "Cached Files".
2) You fucks are conflating background processes and programs in cache memory, and on MacOS, you fucks are conflating a running application with no windows and an actual background process and in cache memory.
>macos gives you 3 different ways to minimize for different purposes
I don't even know what the fuck you're going on about. Mac has ONE minimize. You minimize the window to the dock. It keeps programs running "on the dock". This isn't minimized -- it's literally just an application with no Windows. Analogous to programs in Windows going to the lower-right notification area when you "close" them instead of quitting. Then an application can quit but be CACHED in memory. This is completely different than minimization. The application is not running. A cache is just that -- somewhere the OS can get the program data back quickly. It can just as well choose to eliminate it from memory entirely.
No. It's not in the fucking background. It's terminated. It stays in cached RAM. It's not alert. It's just fucking quicker to read it from RAM than the hard disk, so OS keeps it in RAM instead in case you want to use it again.
Closed programs are often in fucking unused RAM space. They are closed.

So if I just buy a pc, I can afford a better processor and more SSD. This way, software boots up faster, and I don't need to clog up my memory when I just close them!

>It focuses on Finder
Close the window, Finder will stay open (since for whatever retarded reason, the file manager and the shell are the same application).
Or whatever, try it with Pages. Open a new document. Write "I'm a dumb macfag". Then close that window. Open something else. Now Cmd+Tab until you reach Pages. Notice how it opens a new window without Cmd+N. I think the same also happens with the calculator app.

Finally, someone who knows what an OS is.

>Analogous to programs in Windows going to the lower-right notification area when you "close" them instead of quitting. Then an application can quit but be CACHED in memory.
In both cases applications are running

If I close a goddamn program, I want it to be closed, terminated, GTFO my computer (for now). I don't wanna manually terminate it somewhere each time. Even in windows I get pissed off, because I have to ctrl+alt+del each time I want to hard-close something. Mac just makes this more terrible.

> Except no kernel in the last decade clears RAM as soon as a process is killed, you moron. MacOS simply doesn't kill the process, you can check this by running top. It has nothing to do with RAM, just with keeping the process on. You can kill a process and keep its files in RAM, it's called a cache. Read a book.
This is the process I was describing, getting stuck using fucktard words because I don't care to explain vocabulary to fucktards (ie. the difference between closing a program and caching a program).

Just like explorer. You'll need to show a recording, doesn't happen to me.

A quitted/terminated application that's in cache is not running....
(Btw, reading my shit again, in the windows thing, I meant the bullshit applications that refuse to quit when you hit the X button, instead going to that tray in the bottom right, not the normal behavior when an application actually quits).

Why can't Apple properly copy Microsoft's copy of Mac OS?

>A quitted/terminated application that's in cache is not running....
It's not terminated, cmd+q terminates application
>tray in the bottom right
It just hides the windows, it's still running in the background

> If I close a goddamn program, I want it to be closed, terminated, GTFO my computer (for now). I don't wanna manually terminate it somewhere each time. Even in windows I get pissed off, because I have to ctrl+alt+del each time I want to hard-close something. Mac just makes this more terrible.
Then control-click/right-click the program's icon in the dock and choose quit, or use the menu bar. When you realize the window-is-a-document nature of MacOS, versus the window-is-an-application nature of Windows, it's natural. You hit the X to close the document, you use the icon in the dock to quit the application.
If you can't learn to deal with different ways of modelling task management, that's your problem.
> It's not terminated, cmd+q terminates application
You autistic fuck. Learn to fucking parse shit. Language is ambiguous and if you want to operate in society you have to learn to deal with these ambiguities.
> (You minimize the window to the dock.) (It keeps programs running "on the dock". This isn't minimized -- it's literally just an application with no Windows. Analogous to programs in Windows going to the lower-right notification area when you "close" them instead of quitting.) (Then an application can quit but be CACHED in memory. This is completely different than minimization.)

I just want to point out that there was even a fucking "THEN" there, indicating the introduction of a new idea, to separate the ideas of "keeping a program running on the dock/in the system tray" and "THEN actually quitting/terminating an application." And given you're expected to know the smallest bit of shit about computers, the two ideas should've been fucking obviously separate.

Mactoddlers have defended this.

Attached: 1507846781201.webm (1764x1080, 544K)

What I meant by 3 minimizes:
cmd+m
cmd+h
cmd+w
All three cases, application is still running, only cmd-q terminates application and caches it to ram

I wouldn't consider cmd+w to be a "minimize." You close the document. The application continues running. Hiding is a weird one, not really minimizing, but very close in concept, so I'll give you that one.
You're right though that in all cases the application continues running.
In the context of the conversation, which was about quitting applications and still keeping them in a RAM cache, I was really confused what the fuck you were on about.

This makes perfect sense when you realize what the behavior is. It's the "zoom" button. It isn't a maximize. It's fitting the window to the document's contents. Which is a superior concept to maximizing, anyway, which just wastes screen real estate.

What's a dock?

Screw all this, fuck windows and REALLY fuck mac. I'm switching to linux.

lol, you do realize that the predominant desktop environments basically copy the Windows model of task interaction, and in the background, does pretty much all the same shit, right?

I see literally nothing wrong with this. Nobody needs Google blown up to fill the entire screen.

Attached: Kornheiser_Why.jpg (600x1040, 73K)

This is literally "i'm a retard: the post."
You're expecting a close button to quit.
You also don't know that the green button is not maximize.

This.
Some other advantages:
>you can continue downloads after closing all windows
>music from your music player doesn't stop playing if you close the player window

Also, if you don't want it to take up extra resources, just quit the app.

When I open a window it makes logical sense that it's an instance of an application, not a """document""". When I close all the windows I don't want the app to keep hanging around because I explicitly just cancelled all the instances I started. What use would some abstract empty instance sticking around provide if it only has an icon and a menubar? If the rare app wants to offer an interface even when it has no windowed instances, it will provide a notification area icon. Macos is retarded.

Why should a window be an application?

> I don't want the app to keep hanging around because I explicitly just cancelled all the instances I started.

Which is one reason to prefer the window-is-a-document model: you have ONE instance, multiple documents.

Not really. Frequently used files get cached in RAM so efficiently that it gets the benefits of both models.

All modern OS's cache frequently used and recently used files in RAM efficiently.
And note, I mentioned "task interaction," ie. how you, the user, interacts with the tasks. Because they all do very similar things underneath.

>When I open a window it makes logical sense that it's an instance of an application
yes, in retard land

What the fuck

>It's fitting the window to the document's contents.
Yeah, it sure did that on that webm when the viewport became rectangular from the initial square as the sidebar popped up on the """zooooom""" mode.

What a cuck, go install your """apps""" to have your keyboard shortcuts to manage your windows, a built-in feature in the other productivity OSes.

The sidebar is toggled on and then autohides when the window becomes small. If the sidebar was toggled off when the window was big at first, it would remain off when the window becomes big.
It's not my fault you're too fucking autistic to even think there might be nuances.

>Jow Forums
>thinking