Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window?

Discussion in 'Apple' started by FPP, Oct 29, 2013.

  1. FPP

    FPP Guest

    It appears that mavericks has fundamentally changed the way you open
    folders.

    It used to be that there was a preferene setting that allowed you to
    open a folder inside a new window. Mavericks has now gotten rid of that
    option.

    Now, it appears that you have to Opt-Click the folder to open it in it's
    own window. Why? How does adding a key modifier make things better?

    It's a minor annoyance - but it changes the way I've been working for
    years. In a production setting, these little annoyances quickly become
    time wasting productivity killers.

    Added to the loss of MT-Newswatcher, and the fact that my fonts in Pages
    look horrendous - well, Mavericks is leaving me with a decidedly bad
    taste in my mouth.

    I also see that the "grid spacing" options in the finder is different -
    so now I have to shuffle my icons around to different positions in order
    to fit the same number in their customary positions. Another "minor"
    annoyance. BUT it's an annoyance that wasn't there in Mt Lion.

    About the only plus I've noticed is that Font Book finally opens up in
    under 2 minutes. That's actually quite an improvement over ML.

    Oh, and "Mavericks" is still a pretty crappy name for an operating
    system. I wonder why they didn't spell it with an "X"? At least
    "MaverickX" would have been clever, as well as accurate...

    FPP

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits."
     
    FPP, Oct 29, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <-september.org>,
    FPP <> wrote:

    > It appears that mavericks has fundamentally changed the way you open
    > folders.
    >
    > It used to be that there was a preferene setting that allowed you to
    > open a folder inside a new window. Mavericks has now gotten rid of that
    > option.
    >
    > Now, it appears that you have to Opt-Click the folder to open it in it's
    > own window. Why? How does adding a key modifier make things better?


    It used to be that if you double-clicked a folder, it would open in the
    same window, and you could use the back arrow to move back to the
    previous window. Strike "used to be" because it's still the same way.

    Ditto for option double clicking a folder; it used to and still opens
    the folder while closing the enclosing folder.

    The change is that previously, command-double clicking a folder would
    open it in a new window; now it opens it in a new tab in the same
    window.

    > Added to the loss of MT-Newswatcher,


    Blame that on Simon Frasier; he stopped developing MNNW years ago. Open
    Transport was deprecated many versions of OS X ago, and finally removed
    in Mavericks.

    > Oh, and "Mavericks" is still a pretty crappy name for an operating
    > system. I wonder why they didn't spell it with an "X"?


    Because the surfing site it's named after is named "Mavericks".
     
    Michelle Steiner, Oct 29, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. FPP

    Wes Groleau Guest

    On 10-29-2013, 10:47, Michelle Steiner wrote:
    > In article <-september.org>,
    >> Oh, and "Mavericks" is still a pretty crappy name for an operating
    >> system. I wonder why they didn't spell it with an "X"?

    >
    > Because the surfing site it's named after is named "Mavericks".


    Another minor annoyance: The install changed the rotating desktop
    backgrounds on all accounts to ba a constant photo of a big wave.

    And it is apparently a small photo, so it looks grainy when stretched to
    my screen size.

    If you blow up the installer icon, you can see just a hint of that image
    peeking through the X as if it were a cut-out. Few will notice, as at
    regular size, it's just a dark blue X. I think it would have bee better
    to have the disk show the wave, with a white X in front of it.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    There are some ideas so wrong that only a
    very intelligent person could believe in them.
    — George Orwell
     
    Wes Groleau, Oct 29, 2013
    #3
  4. FPP

    nospam Guest

    In article <291020130747587194%>, Michelle Steiner
    <> wrote:

    > > It appears that mavericks has fundamentally changed the way you open
    > > folders.
    > >
    > > It used to be that there was a preferene setting that allowed you to
    > > open a folder inside a new window. Mavericks has now gotten rid of that
    > > option.
    > >
    > > Now, it appears that you have to Opt-Click the folder to open it in it's
    > > own window. Why? How does adding a key modifier make things better?

    >
    > It used to be that if you double-clicked a folder, it would open in the
    > same window, and you could use the back arrow to move back to the
    > previous window. Strike "used to be" because it's still the same way.
    >
    > Ditto for option double clicking a folder; it used to and still opens
    > the folder while closing the enclosing folder.
    >
    > The change is that previously, command-double clicking a folder would
    > open it in a new window; now it opens it in a new tab in the same
    > window.


    no, the change is there used to be a preference for new window, and now
    it's gone.

    > > Added to the loss of MT-Newswatcher,

    >
    > Blame that on Simon Frasier; he stopped developing MNNW years ago. Open
    > Transport was deprecated many versions of OS X ago, and finally removed
    > in Mavericks.


    doesn't matter who is at fault. at the end of the day, mtnw no longer
    works.

    there are alternatives, but it's still an issue.

    the same issue happened with lion when rosetta went away. those who had
    powerpc apps had to find alternatives.

    > > Oh, and "Mavericks" is still a pretty crappy name for an operating
    > > system. I wonder why they didn't spell it with an "X"?

    >
    > Because the surfing site it's named after is named "Mavericks".


    still a dumb name.
     
    nospam, Oct 29, 2013
    #4
  5. FPP

    John White Guest

    In article <l4omrr$3kd$>,
    Wes Groleau <> wrote:

    >
    > Another minor annoyance: The install changed the rotating desktop
    > backgrounds on all accounts to ba a constant photo of a big wave.


    Didn't happen to me; I still have the same rotating desktop backgrounds
    that I had before the Mavericks install.
     
    John White, Oct 29, 2013
    #5
  6. FPP

    Wes Groleau Guest

    On 10-29-2013, 14:46, John White wrote:
    > Wes Groleau <> wrote:
    >
    >> Another minor annoyance: The install changed the rotating desktop
    >> backgrounds on all accounts to be a constant photo of a big wave.

    >
    > Didn't happen to me; I still have the same rotating desktop backgrounds
    > that I had before the Mavericks install.


    Hmmm....weird. Anyone with GraphicConverter (GC) and/or MS Office 2011
    who did NOT have them forget that you were licensed?

    More weirdness: I avoided opening mail due to the GMail issues I had
    been warned about. I clicked the GC support link without thinking and
    it launched Mail, which worked the same as before, i.e. poorly, but with
    no new problems and no change in the old ones.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming
    intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared
    from the common culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with
    the release of MS-DOS.
    — Larry DeLuca
     
    Wes Groleau, Oct 29, 2013
    #6
  7. Michelle Steiner <> wrote:

    > The change is that previously, command-double clicking a folder would
    > open it in a new window; now it opens it in a new tab in the same
    > window.


    The old behavior can be restored by unchecking "Open folders in tabs
    instead of new windows" in Finder Preferences. Pressing the Option key
    toggles the contextual menu command between "Open in New Window" and
    "Open in New Tab", the default being determined by the Finder setting.
     
    Neill Massello, Oct 29, 2013
    #7
  8. In article <1lbic6r.yrvw6t1n1umn6N%>, Neill Massello
    <> wrote:

    > > The change is that previously, command-double clicking a folder would
    > > open it in a new window; now it opens it in a new tab in the same
    > > window.

    >
    > The old behavior can be restored by unchecking "Open folders in tabs
    > instead of new windows" in Finder Preferences. Pressing the Option key
    > toggles the contextual menu command between "Open in New Window" and
    > "Open in New Tab", the default being determined by the Finder setting.


    Thanks. I had not investigated Finder Preferences yet.

    -- Michelle
     
    Michelle Steiner, Oct 29, 2013
    #8
  9. FPP

    Lewis Guest

    In message <l4omrr$3kd$>
    Wes Groleau <> wrote:
    > On 10-29-2013, 10:47, Michelle Steiner wrote:
    >> In article <-september.org>,
    >>> Oh, and "Mavericks" is still a pretty crappy name for an operating
    >>> system. I wonder why they didn't spell it with an "X"?

    >>
    >> Because the surfing site it's named after is named "Mavericks".


    > Another minor annoyance: The install changed the rotating desktop
    > backgrounds on all accounts to ba a constant photo of a big wave.


    Not on any of my machines

    > And it is apparently a small photo, so it looks grainy when stretched to
    > my screen size.


    It is a HUGE photo, much higher resolution than any screen you own.

    --
    BART BUCKS ARE NOT LEGAL TENDER Bart chalkboard Ep. 8F06
     
    Lewis, Oct 29, 2013
    #9
  10. FPP

    Wes Groleau Guest

    On 10-29-2013, 19:46, Lewis wrote:
    > In message <l4omrr$3kd$>
    > Wes Groleau <> wrote:
    >> On 10-29-2013, 10:47, Michelle Steiner wrote:
    >>> In article <-september.org>,
    >>>> Oh, and "Mavericks" is still a pretty crappy name for an operating
    >>>> system. I wonder why they didn't spell it with an "X"?
    >>>
    >>> Because the surfing site it's named after is named "Mavericks".

    >
    >> Another minor annoyance: The install changed the rotating desktop
    >> backgrounds on all accounts to ba a constant photo of a big wave.

    >
    > Not on any of my machines
    >
    >> And it is apparently a small photo, so it looks grainy when stretched to
    >> my screen size.

    >
    > It is a HUGE photo, much higher resolution than any screen you own.


    Then it has intentionally been made grainy. Or they took a small one
    and enlarged it for some reason.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Heroes, Heritage, and History
    http://UniGen.us/webtrees
     
    Wes Groleau, Oct 30, 2013
    #10
  11. Wes Groleau <> wrote:

    > And it is apparently a small photo, so it looks grainy when stretched to
    > my screen size.


    /Library/Desktop Pictures/Wave.jpg is a 5120 x 2880 pixel image with a
    file size of about 9MB. Those "grains" are small ripples on the surface
    of the water.
     
    Neill Massello, Oct 30, 2013
    #11
  12. In article <1lbimhp.98vwe8hv9q0wN%>, Neill Massello
    <> wrote:

    > > And it is apparently a small photo, so it looks grainy when stretched to
    > > my screen size.

    >
    > /Library/Desktop Pictures/Wave.jpg is a 5120 x 2880 pixel image with a
    > file size of about 9MB. Those "grains" are small ripples on the surface
    > of the water.


    Yup, that's what they are. Compare that to snow.jpg in the same folder
    to see another example of small ripples on the surface of something.
     
    Michelle Steiner, Oct 30, 2013
    #12
  13. FPP

    Wes Groleau Guest

    On 10-29-2013, 20:56, Michelle Steiner wrote:
    > In article <1lbimhp.98vwe8hv9q0wN%>, Neill Massello
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> And it is apparently a small photo, so it looks grainy when stretched to
    >>> my screen size.

    >>
    >> /Library/Desktop Pictures/Wave.jpg is a 5120 x 2880 pixel image with a
    >> file size of about 9MB. Those "grains" are small ripples on the surface
    >> of the water.

    >
    > Yup, that's what they are. Compare that to snow.jpg in the same folder
    > to see another example of small ripples on the surface of something.


    I understand that water has ripples. But these really do look like
    flaws in the picture. Or like someone was trying to imitate an oil
    painting. The quality of the picture, though, is not what irritates me.
    It's that the upgrade changed or deleted so many pref. files.

    All the more irritating is that I seem to have been singled out for this
    treatment. Not that I wish it on anyone else.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Always listen to experts. They'll tell you
    what can't be done and why. Then do it.
    — Robert A. Heinlein
     
    Wes Groleau, Oct 30, 2013
    #13
  14. In article <-september.org>,
    FPP <> wrote:

    > It appears that mavericks has fundamentally changed the way you open
    > folders.
    >
    > It used to be that there was a preferene setting that allowed you to
    > open a folder inside a new window. Mavericks has now gotten rid of that
    > option.


    That was a big disappointment for me, too. I filed a request to have
    this feature reinstalled, at the Apple feedback site:

    http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html

    Such requests will probably be futile, however. My suspicion is that,
    with each major release, Apple will be moving OS X closer and closer to
    the iOS look and feel. They are encouraging developers to emphasize
    full screen and single window GUIs.

    --
    Julian Vrieslander
     
    Julian Vrieslander, Oct 30, 2013
    #14
  15. FPP

    FPP Guest

    In article <l4pjkp$ref$>,
    Wes Groleau <> wrote:
    > >> And it is apparently a small photo, so it looks grainy when stretched to
    > >> my screen size.

    > >
    > > It is a HUGE photo, much higher resolution than any screen you own.

    >
    > Then it has intentionally been made grainy. Or they took a small one
    > and enlarged it for some reason.


    No. It's just a lousy picture. Shitty, in fact. I'm surprised Apple
    chose such a low quality image to represent it's new baby.

    It's not very clear, or sharp - more like a snapshop than a profesional
    photograph.

    I've been in the printing business for 30+ years (pre-press), and I've
    seen a million images just like this one. Hell, I've *taken* a million
    pictures just like this one...

    It looks like a non-professional photo that my mother-in-law could have
    taken with her Kodak point and shoot. It wasn't exactly what you'd
    expect from a Hasselblad :)

    Resolution and image *quality* have NOTHING to do with one another.

    FPP

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits."
     
    FPP, Oct 30, 2013
    #15
  16. FPP

    Wes Groleau Guest

    On 10-30-2013, 00:46, Julian Vrieslander wrote:
    > Such requests will probably be futile, however. My suspicion is that,
    > with each major release, Apple will be moving OS X closer and closer to
    > the iOS look and feel. They are encouraging developers to emphasize
    > full screen and single window GUIs.


    Hey, guys, glad you like our multi-user, multi-tasking operating system.

    But don't forget: everyone but your fellow geeks--in other words,
    99%--will be much happier if you can make it look like a single-use,
    single-task public kiosk.

    (We'll be happier too, 'cause fewer people will notice we're not
    perfect. #$%^#$% forgot to switch my #$%^$%^ mike off!)

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Armchair Activism: http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html
     
    Wes Groleau, Oct 30, 2013
    #16
  17. FPP

    android Guest

    In article <291020131432411860%>,
    nospam <> wrote:

    > > > Oh, and "Mavericks" is still a pretty crappy name for an operating
    > > > system. I wonder why they didn't spell it with an "X"?

    > >
    > > Because the surfing site it's named after is named "Mavericks".

    >
    > still a dumb name.


    I took it to the bookshelf... It's apparently some kind of beef. You
    know cow! Combined with the bootshaped new Mc Pro... Think cowboys this
    year...
    --
    teleportation kills
     
    android, Oct 30, 2013
    #17
  18. FPP

    FPP Guest

    In article <-september.org>,
    FPP <> wrote:

    > No. It's just a lousy picture. Shitty, in fact. I'm surprised Apple
    > chose such a low quality image to represent it's new baby.
    >
    > It's not very clear, or sharp - more like a snapshop than a profesional
    > photograph.
    >
    > I've been in the printing business for 30+ years (pre-press), and I've
    > seen a million images just like this one. Hell, I've *taken* a million
    > pictures just like this one...
    >
    > It looks like a non-professional photo that my mother-in-law could have
    > taken with her Kodak point and shoot. It wasn't exactly what you'd
    > expect from a Hasselblad :)
    >
    > Resolution and image *quality* have NOTHING to do with one another.
    >
    > FPP


    Ha! It *was* Amateur Night in Dixie...

    see:
    http://osxdaily.com/2013/06/10/get-the-default-os-x-mavericks-wave-wallpa
    per/

    There actually is a better, clearer, much more appealing version of the
    "wave" desktop picture - and it's apparently from Apple.

    Mavericks wave = 5120 x 2880 @ 240 dpi

    Apple's "original" wave = 3533 x 1987 @ 72 dpi

    So, it appears that the Mavericks version was blown up and increased in
    resolution. All of which means that it's gonna look like shit compared
    to the "original" photo.

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits."
     
    FPP, Oct 31, 2013
    #18
  19. In article <l4pjkp$ref$>,
    Wes Groleau <> wrote:

    > Then it has intentionally been made grainy. Or they took a small one
    > and enlarged it for some reason.


    Yes, it's a nice image for a desktop, but (technically) this is not a
    very high quality photo. The huge dimensions of the file suggest that
    Apple might have a 4K screen in the pipeline.

    Hey, notice how I cleverly sneaked another surfing reference into this
    post?

    --
    Julian Vrieslander
     
    Julian Vrieslander, Nov 11, 2013
    #19
  20. In article <-september.org>,
    FPP <> wrote:

    > No. It's just a lousy picture. Shitty, in fact. I'm surprised Apple
    > chose such a low quality image to represent it's new baby.
    >
    > It's not very clear, or sharp - more like a snapshop than a profesional
    > photograph.


    Could be that this shot was upsampled to match the pixel dimensions of
    some (as-yet-unannounced) large Apple monitor or TV.

    Another possibility is that they low-pass filtered it, to remove high
    frequency detail that could cause aliasing (Moire) when the file is
    displayed on smaller screens.

    --
    Julian Vrieslander
     
    Julian Vrieslander, Nov 11, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mudz
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    307
  2. fishfry

    Open in new finder window?

    fishfry, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Apple
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    188
    Frederick Cheung
    Aug 26, 2003
  3. Hotspur
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    386
    Hotspur
    May 19, 2006
  4. john
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    463
    Clark Martin
    Aug 18, 2009
  5. DaveC
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    619
    Barry Margolin
    Nov 8, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page