What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Give a Genuine Gibson Guitar for $99 (Price, Not a Typo) view!
bestbuy.com - World-class starter guitar--sweet sound, killer craftsmanship and yeah, you read that price right.
104 Comments
- Lightstab, on 09/22/2009, -7/+42The install procedure is simple in OS X. You open the file and you drag the app to where you want it. People get confused because no one is used to something being that easy in the Windows world.
- jerryjamesstone, on 09/22/2009, -5/+34I need an app for installing my apps
- xsecretfiles, on 09/22/2009, -3/+28seriously? drag and drop is too hard????
- borez, on 09/22/2009, -4/+26Good lord, it's not exactly rocket science installing a ***** Mac app.
- kevinmoore, on 09/22/2009, -2/+20Because some installers are disk images.
- ScientistBlah, on 09/22/2009, -8/+24Here come a wave of douchebags saying "I thought macs just work!!"
- digitalpencil, on 09/22/2009, -6/+21you're as unique as your username..
- shutaro, on 09/22/2009, -9/+24There's an app for that!
- tinkafoo, on 09/22/2009, -0/+14waitaminute.. THIS is difficult?!
http://www.mozilla.com/img/tignish/download/osx/st ... - darkism, on 09/22/2009, -11/+24You've obviously never installed a Mac application. It can't possibly be simpler.
To someone accustomed to the roundabout ***** of Windows, though. it seems WAY too simple the first time you do it. I remember when I first got my Mac, I was in shocked disbelief that installing a program was as easy as dragging it to where you wanted it. - leodavinci0, on 09/22/2009, -2/+14I'm just glad Mac OS X uses drag and drop for almost all the apps, as opposed to an installer. Thereby, copying the application during, for example, a clean install is possible and simple. Otherwise you would need the installer, or the disk; without either you will not be able to keep the app. I agree that a little pop up would be nice that would have the app moved to the Apps folder when "Ok" is clicked, but the drag and drop ability is a godsend in comparison to the installation process of Windows.
- leodavinci0, on 09/22/2009, -2/+13It's obvious many of the commenters never used a Mac before. I use one at home, and a Windows computer at work, and the differences are large. It is much nicer to deal with on a Mac (and Linux computers that work the same way) then it is on Windows. You might think it's easy on Windows, but relatively it is not. On several occassions I've had the installer fail due to "conflicts". And I don't know how many times had to go to the Windows Uninstaller to get some multi megabyte app off my computer, to only have the uninstaller fail, then refuse to take the program files disseminated around my HDD off during repeated tries. Thus manually find the files, and wasted space for the parts I don't know about.
- patm1987, on 09/22/2009, -0/+11because .app "files" are really just special directories, and you can't distribute a directory over the internet without packaging it somehow. It's one of the things that's nice about klik on Linux http://klik.atekon.de/ (the files are disk images, but running them expands the image onto your filesystem and executes the main program, rather than giving you a folder to drag somewhere). GoboLinux (http://www.gobolinux.org/ ) is also similar to OSX, only it provides a package manager to automate the app installation but places each app into it's own folder under programs.
- digitalpencil, on 09/22/2009, -2/+11personally i just wish they'd make trash package sensitive, integrating something like AppCleaner (or AppZapper for those that paid) into the finder.. Hell, they can buy Quicksilver off Blacktree while they're there, finally pull it out of beta and throw it in with OS X, it'd be great to have this functionality out of box.
- zephc, on 09/22/2009, -0/+8And to make it even easier for the FOB Windows users, many apps that come packaged in disk images, when opened, have an arrow with instructions that say Drag Here and an alias to the /Applications folder
- inactive, on 09/22/2009, -10/+18For a company that prides itself on design, Mac's method of installing apps make no sense. Why does my installer file look like a drive and why do I have to eject it?
- jefree, on 09/22/2009, -0/+8The current Mac Process is simple, but not intuitive. I'm a long time Mac user and when I install a new App now-a-days I often feel like maybe I didn't do it right at first, but then it works fine and I go on with my life. If the program has to be in a specific place then it seems like a "simple" install button should find the Applications folder and put it there for the user. Otherwise I feel like I could put it anywhere I want or run it off the disk image. And the disk-image doesn't make any sense after a download - its not like you put in a CD or disk media. It's just a file. So the process is easy, but confusing and certainly not intuitive.
- superkendall, on 09/22/2009, -0/+7I really like the end approach they came up with, which was to have apps realize if they are launched elsewhere on first launch and ask the user if they should be moved to Applications.
- insertAliasHere, on 09/22/2009, -0/+7Just so you know, some Mac apps do put config files and such in places other than their own folder (a .app is really a kind of directory, not a file, for those that don't know). So, in turn, some leave those files behind when you delete the app. It depends on the developer.
That's why there are products like AppCleaner. - leodavinci0, on 09/22/2009, -1/+8I would consider drag and drop much safer than an install, since the install puts crap all over the place, but drag and drop puts it all in one simple package. Also, I deal with the crap of installing and uninstalling windows apps on my work comp. It has been a headache on many occassions, especially when uninstalling. It isn't painless on Windows when you consider how easy it is to move apps from computer to HDD and delete them on a Mac in comparison to Windows.
- Arctaus, on 09/22/2009, -0/+7did you even read the article?
- bigteebo, on 09/22/2009, -1/+8Don't forget the installer making you shut down several seemingly un-related apps, and the occasional requirement to reboot.
- firesights, on 09/22/2009, -8/+14Right? So much easier than clicking "next" in windows from the autoplay menu.
- insertAliasHere, on 09/22/2009, -0/+6The point of the article is that even though it is incredibly simple, users are still ***** it up.
The first time I used my Mac I was unsure of how to handle the install as well, because I certainly wasn't used to dragging and dropping to install. Plus, double clicking an app in it's disk image will still launch the app, so people who did that first will never know that they are doing it wrong. It'll load slower and be a hassle every time they need to use it, but they don't know that.
In this case, Apple may have actually oversimplified things to the point where it became confusing again. But some developers have done creative things around it. I know that one app I used (forget which) came in a disk image with a background and a shortcut to the Applications folder. The background had a big arrow pointing from the .app to the App folder, so it was obvious what I was supposed to do. - aristotle0dude, on 09/22/2009, -0/+5Packages? Dependencies? Do you really expect end users to have to deal with those things?
- wtfitsRICK, on 09/22/2009, -4/+9@firesights One click/drag vs. ten clicks. Seems easier to me. Sure, it's not an extreme pain to install in Windows, but it's much easier on a Mac.
- ethana2, on 09/22/2009, -2/+7I love the Ubuntu Software Store.
- FredFredrickson, on 09/22/2009, -2/+7Um... no. No program in Windows expects to be run from a particular folder, except for maybe system programs. Whenever you install an application, it asks you where you want to put it. The system doesn't care where you put it. And if the program comes without an installer, it can be run from anywhere.
You and the people who dug you up don't know what the ***** you're talking about. - leodavinci0, on 09/22/2009, -0/+5An article I read once said it was a security reason, to keep it quarantined in a sense from everything else on the HDD. But another I found said distribution as a disk image is an easy option, and so that just ended up becoming a default way for distributing apps. It doesn't seem distribution of apps via disk image was Apple's choice.
- KSUdesigner, on 09/22/2009, -3/+7"There are more clicks involved, but it's a simpler process than asking the user to mount a disk image, open the new virtual drive, and drag the contents into a special folder on the hard drive."
No it isn't simpler, because that new virtual drive typically opens itself, and most developers place a shortcut to the applications folder right in the virtual drive so you don't have to go hunting for that special folder. It might be easier to understand what to do on Windows, but in no way is it simpler. - aristotle0dude, on 09/22/2009, -0/+4No kidding. Some disk images even have a textual explanation telling the user to drag the icon over the the folder in the same window as if an arrow was not enough of an explanation.
- pyrates, on 09/22/2009, -0/+4Disk images store all the directories that an application needs as well as all the proper permissions such as what is executable and what isn't. It's something linux should look into because it means I dont need to go to the command line to install something. RPM and DEB both work the same kind of way except they are tied to the distribution. It should be distribution neutral, but a lot of the linux heads don't like that idea. I have no idea why.
- inactive, on 09/22/2009, -0/+4PEBKAC: apparently there is a blog for that.
- joaob, on 09/22/2009, -1/+5Stop expecting OS X to act like Windows and vice versa. Problem solved.
Pretty simple. - FredFredrickson, on 09/22/2009, -3/+7On a Mac, you download a file, unpack it, load the disk image, open it, open the applications folder, and drag the application from one to the other.
For anyone who isn't used to working with computers for a while, it is pretty confusing as to why most programs need to mount a virtual drive for the "install," as well as when that new drive can be ejected. - explodingzebras, on 09/22/2009, -0/+4well not quite forever, until they unsupported, and/or you get 'held back' in the update manager.
- insertAliasHere, on 09/22/2009, -0/+4The problem, I think, is the lack of explanation. Apple loves to think everything they make is self explanatory, but some people are just ***** stupid. Like the iPhone. It doesn't even come with a manual, because it's supposed to be so intuitive. But I still had to go and tell all my employees that had one about certain things, like double clicking the home button, and how to re-order apps. There's no way these people would know these things, because there was no manual. It makes sense to us, but not to them.
In the same way, most people are coming from a windows environment, where installing applications is a pretty well known process. Double click, then click next until it's done. Now they have to do something different. It's arguably simpler (or at least it has less steps) but it's a break with what they're used to. A little bit of explanation would go a long way. Lots of apps are just a single file in a dmg. What are they supposed to think. In windows, they would double click it. - ninetimes, on 09/22/2009, -4/+7I don't think that's such a crazy idea. OSX should have a package manager. Apple could enable some repository of endorsed/known-safe applications, and also enable users to add their own repositories.
Not only might it make it less confusing to install software, but it would also make it easier to keep software up to date. Right now, apps have a nasty habit of including their own updaters in the app, and then when you launch each app it checks for updates. Wouldn't it be easier/better if you have a centralized way to update all your apps at once (like if "Software Update" actually updated all your apps, and not just Apple apps). - scarper86, on 09/22/2009, -11/+14Because there's usually a wave of douchebags who say, "Macs just work."
- insertAliasHere, on 09/22/2009, -0/+3Trying to read your post made my brain hurt.
- aristotle0dude, on 09/22/2009, -9/+12Ok, I think you are forgetting that the windows platform and many application expect to be run from the programs folder of windows which is under a nest of folder. With OS X, on the other hand, you have an Applications folder off the root of the drive with all applications right there with no two or three folder nesting by Company and application name like you see on the start menu. In OS X, an application can run from any folder you wish to put it into.
- aristotle0dude, on 09/22/2009, -0/+3@insertAliasHere: You can specify a different folder structure but 99% of users will not bother with the customize option and not all installers allow you to change the install directory. Most installer default to the following pattern: C:\Program Files\<Company Name>\Product Name\ as the folder to install files. Some games take it a step further and have their main executable in a bin subfolder.
Now contrast that with most applications on OS X. Your application will go into the /Applications folder by either drag and drop or the default location for an installer. For drag and drop installations, the app on first run will create folders in either the /Library/Application Support\ folder or the ~/Library/Application Support/ folder. Those folders are also where installers are supposed to install support and data files for the application.
You can safely trash most applications without having to clean up the Library folders as those support files are only loaded when you use the application and if the app is deleted, those files just take up space rather than dragging down performance like improperly uninstalled apps do on windows. - superkendall, on 09/22/2009, -3/+6One of the points of the article is that disk image installers are lame, most are there only because they provide a link to move something to applications - but you can have the app ask on first launch if it should be moved there.
- choopie911, on 09/22/2009, -0/+3Installing applications on OS X is ridiculously easy. Are people honestly confused by "click and drag" and eject? Just sad.
- explodingzebras, on 09/22/2009, -0/+3UNIX based* - MacOSX isn't linux, its UNIX certifed, based on some BSD code with Mach kernel
- explodingzebras, on 09/22/2009, -0/+3and your Program Files folder looking like a shop catalog, most of the apps are sorted by Maker. If i want to find where Everest Home is installed for instance I have to remember that it's made by Lavalys
- ethana2, on 09/22/2009, -0/+3If Ubuntu worked like OS X, every app would be a .deb that came in a .iso containing one decorated directory where you had to drag the icon into apps just to tell the OS to install the .deb file... Instead of just getting a .deb file and double clicking it and clicking 'install'.
But who uses installation files anymore when everything's in the Ubuntu Software Store anyways? - Arctaus, on 09/22/2009, -0/+3did you even read the article? The majority of app installation is either drag and drop a single icon, if not, it is a walkthrough installation like on windows.
- ethana2, on 09/22/2009, -0/+3There are many apps for that, and OS X is one of only two relevant desktops that don't come with one.
- alansky, on 09/22/2009, -3/+5Confusing for morons, perhaps. Piece of cake for the rest of us.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 