Brushed metal

[luis ernesto]

holas deseo descargar el msn bushed metal

[Mikuro]

The truth is, metal windows don't need buffers at the edges any more than aqua windows. Most windows have 8-20 pixels of empty space at each edge. This is the way it's been ever since...well, ever. I only really got on board the Mac train with System 7, but the interface guidelines I'm talking about preceded even that (of course, back then the borders weere definitely closer to 8 than 20 pixels — Apple's OS X guidelines recommend obscene amounts of empty space!).

Take Safari: It's metal, and has no borders. iTunes does, but really, it probably would (and should) if were aqua, too. You'll usually only see the entire width of a window used if it's used by ONE object, like in Safari. In iTunes, you have the playlist list and the track list, so it would look kind of nasty without borders at the edges. Although it's true that that style isn't unprecedented; Apple uses it in XCode — and I've always considered it very ugly. I think the reason Apple uses that style for XCode is because it's a developer tool, and that's the only context where they'll put so little emphasis on aesthetics.

OS 8/9 actually needed this empty space much LESS than OS X, because it had actual window borders, not just shadows. So this isn't a throwback to Classic at all.

So the problems you're describing aren't with brushed metal, they're with the individual interfaces of a few programs like iChat (which DO need work).

That said, I hate metal. Always have, and with every new app that uses it, I hate it more. It made some kind of sense when it was reserved for multimedia apps like QuickTime Player, iTunes and iMovie. The whole look was (I guess) made to mimic hardware multimedia devices, so it made sense. But Safari? iChat? The Finder?!? They just took it too far.

And then of course there's the fact that all that fancy shading comes at a BIG performance price.

[texanpenguin]

I really like brushed metal; it's required to create some contrast in the OS, and looks great.

I just wish Apple would obey its own HIG about their use. It'd be nice if they made iPhoto an application which you need to *quit* to exit, instead of just closing.

[fryke]

I thought iPhoto was a single window app and thus _should_ close when its window's closed?

[texanpenguin]

Yes, but so is iTunes.

The reason for the File > Quit option was because in the non-multitasking Macs, that allowed the user to finish his or her session with the program and free up space for a new application in its space.

You could close an application, but it was still loaded in memory. You could resume working with the program with very little start up time.


Same today. iPhoto (after you add more than a small amount of photos, say 1000) is one of the longest-booting time applications on my computer. I have the RAM to support having it open like I do iTunes or whatever, but I don't want to wait for it to reload all of the application (and the thumbnails).

I keep iTunes, Photoshop, iCal, Mail and Safari all open, all day, no matter where I am or what I'm doing. I'd like to be able to add iPhoto to that list, but I don't want to minimise things (my Dock already uses up enough of my screen)

[lbj]

The "hide" function works great for, well, hiding an application without it minimizing to the dock.

several ways to accompish this:

while the app window is open, move the mouse to anywhere else (don't click yet), especially over the desktop, press the option key, and click.

or, right click the dock icon and select hide

or, select hide from the application's drop down menu at the top.

I agree, I don't like the way iPhoto behaves, put keeping it open, but hidden, takes away some of my angst.

[Lt Major Burns]

or with the focus on the app., (it says, for example, iPohot next to the apple menu) just hit apple+h. gone.

[texanpenguin]

Totally forgot about Hide.

Thanks for reminding me, actually