Background colors

I find white too bright, plus it uses up more electricity, as a
background color. Is there any way of setting a different background
default color in OS X? A medium gray might be pleasant on the eyes.

Keith Wood...

Yes, but only one other choice: try command option ctrl 8. There's also

The New Guy...

Nothing happens when I try that. Perhaps I need to activate something
elsewhere for that to work? I'm using Microsoft's 4000 driver for the
keyboard. That might explain why some of my kb shortcuts don't work.

Keith Wood...

The option can also be accessed via System Preferences > Displays >
Universal Access > Seeing (choose white-on-black).

The New Guy...

Actually that is a nice option as it can be activated on the fly very
quickly with a kb shortcut. Thanks. I'd forgotten about that. I
corrected the location.

Insanity's ShapeShifter. Incidentally, I thought you had LCD monitors?

Keith Wood...

Oops, I meant Unsanity's ShapeShifter:

Yep, that's right, you have to install a haxie to get OS X to do something
that Windows 95 could do...

The New Guy...

I'll try it.

Power consumption color differences only matters significantly with a CRT.

The New Guy...

Yes I do. Didn't realize it made almost no difference with LCD
monitors. Lately I've been going through all the electrical devices
in my place. Its quite surprising how much power some use. Like old
fridges! Speaking of power, is it very difficult to run some Macs on
12 volt power? I was hoping to bypass the 110 volt to 12 volt
conversion in the power supplies. Don't know if that would make it
more efficient or if I should use a 12 volt to 110 volt inverter. I'm
wondering how difficult it would be to take my Mac Mini on the road
relying solely on 12 volts. Some people have adopted them to cars so
this issue must have been addressed.

Clever Monkey...

The mini has an external power supply, right? Just find out the specs
for that.

nonesuch...

You can change the background colour of Finder windows, if that's what
you want. Choose view options.

aa...

If that's what he wants and has an intel mac, he's out of luck.
That particular feature does not work. Pick a colour, and for some
reason the colour doesn't stick - instead it picks out a seemingly
random gaudy colour next time you open the window.

At the very least that's how it works on my macbook and searching the web reveals
it's a common bug among intel machines.

TaliesinSoft...

I'm using a MacBook Pro with OS X 10.4.9 and the color I choose for a Finder
window background stays constant. What I don't like is that the chosen
background doesn't also apply to the sidebar in the Finder window.

nonesuch...

An alternative that should work would therefore be to choose a picture
instead. A picture in a single block of colour would achieve the same
thing, I would guess.

Michelle Steiner...

What I found is that it picks a similar color, and then alternates
between that color and the chosen color each time you close and open the
window.

isw...

It works perfectly on my MacBook -- I have a couple of windows set that
way. I get the same color every time I open the window.

aa...

Do you have a C2D? Maybe it was fixed in the later revisions. It's

isw...

Nope; it's an Intel Core Duo.

strange though, it seems to work fine for some, but it's definitely a
common problem for many.

Also it's odd that Apple haven't issued a software fix for *all*
machines. It's a very obvious bug. Can't imagine why it would be so
difficult to fix.

isw...

I can se why there could be differences between the PPC and Intel
versions, because they're different code bases. I cannot understand how
there could be a problem of this sort between different Intel processor
types, since they run the same code.

Dave Balderstone...

AFAIKT it only works in icon view, regardless.

Gregory Weston...

Background color in what? Any given app can do whatever it likes within
its own windows.

Jolly Roger...

The background color of *what*? Please make the effort to supply
enough background information for us to be able to answer your question!

The New Guy...

Of everything. That's why I didn't itemize the app. Any app that
does not have background color adjustments is a candidate. Like Mail,
Finder, etc. If the app doesn't allow adjustment, it just default to
an OS X stipulated color. That's what I was hoping to change.

Gregory Weston...

No. If the app doesn't allow adjustment, the app developer didn't
provide the means for you to override what color they've decided to use
for the background (or any other element, for that matter). Don't assume
that all such apps are falling back on colors and/or patterns suggested
by the OS. Some may, but I'd wager most don't.

You might be surprised to hear, for example, that the default window
background color isn't even a color. It's a pattern of white and
pale-grey lines. Maybe developers are using the default text background
color as their general purpose background, but I'd bet you a lunch most
of them are using "white."

Jolly Roger...

In that case, why not just adjust the brightness of your entire screen
with the F14 and F15 keys?

The New Guy...

I thought that was only possible with the iMacs (built in monitor).

Jolly Roger...

Hmm... I use it with the 23" cinema display connected to my G5 tower.
Maybe it requires an Apple monitor connected via USB cable.

I'm using a PPC Mini with a 19" LCD monitor.

Jolly Roger...

In that case, I would take a look at the monitor's built-in settings
for brightness.

The New Guy...

Its not the brightness that's the problem. I need the brightness for
viewing pictures.

I tried Unsanity's Shapeshifter but I didn't see any way of adjusting
background colors. Desktop, Icons, etc, but no background. Using
version 2.3.

Jolly Roger...

Again, background colors of what? Before you said "everything", and
that's what the display brightness setting adjusts. Be more specific.
Give examples. Put a screen shot up on the web. Are you suggesting
you've made this type of adjustment in some other operating system? If
so, give an example of that. Give more information of some kind, for
crying out loud! ; )

The New Guy...

Background color of Finder for example. Or news readers, or email
programs or most anything with a white background that doesn't allow
you to change the background. Obviously not word processors.......

Jolly Roger...

You say you want to change everything that is white to gray. Yet why
obviously not word processors?! You still want text to have a white

The New Guy...

Because I can already change the background in a word processor.
For example, recently I've been spending a lot of time with the Finder
reorganizing files; a lot of them photos. I need the brightness high
for proper rendition of photos, but when I switch to the Finder, its
unnecessarily bright. If only the background was a gray, it would be
great. With Pathfinder I've been able to change the background and
for most file organization Pathfinder is better, yet there are still
things that Finder is better at so I just use both. Hope that makes
sense. But hey, if its not possible, its not possible. Hence my
query.

background, apparently. And you still want pictures / icons / other
things to be unchanged as well. Have you ever seen any computer do what
you describe?! It sounds like a ridiculous request to me.

Anyway, the best you are going to get is to dim the brightness of your
LCD. Fact of life with any desktop computer.

Keith Wood...

Do you mean something like this?
(Warning: unsightly Windows 2000 screenshots follow)

The New Guy...

There you go! Its really nice to work with low contrast windows
sometimes. The glare can kind of wear on you after a while.

Jolly Roger...

Ummm... ShapeShifter does this and more. You seemed to indicate it

Jolly Roger...

Not to mention, in true Mac style, it's *WAY* better looking than
anything on Windows.

didn't, but I've seen *plenty* of very dark (even almost totally black)
themes for ShapeShifter.

How hard did you look? Did you bother to web-search for "shapeshifter themes"?

Jolly Roger...

One example:

The New Guy...

When I went into Preferences I expected to see some options there. I
didn't realize you have to "get the theme" first. I guess that makes
sense, since there are so many possible themes. Still, you'd think
they would put background color in there, being its so basic.

Jolly Roger...

No if you want to create a custom theme, you will have to do just
that: create your own custom theme.

http://www.cafesociety.uk.com/other/app.png

Michelle Steiner...

Are you referring specifically to windows within those applications?

The New Guy...

Yes.

You can set the background for the Finder (i.e., the Desktop) to any
color, pattern, or picture that you want.

The New Guy...

I see what might have been not understood. Background for most Mac
users, since they often don't use windows full screen is precisely
that. I'm a full screen kind of guy for a lot of my apps, Finder
being one, so yes, its the background to the "window within that app".
Thanks for pointing that out. With my Finder I can only adjust the
background in Icon view. List and Column (which I use 99% of the
time) doesn't give options.

Jolly Roger...

You need to just break yourself of that bad habit.

Jolly Roger...

(missing quote restored)

TaliesinSoft...

I differ in that I don't find it a "bad habit" at all. I work frequently with
applications such as InDesign and Freeway where in addition to the main
window one might have open quite a few palettes, and I find it very
distracting, even confusing, to see such as InDesign palettes when I'm
working with Freeway. If I need to switch applications it is easy enough to
make a selection in the dock or to use the cmd-tab method.

Ian Gregory...

I think I might have missed something here. I don't really know
Windows but I understand that some people running Windows application
have a tendency to run them in some sort of strange "full screen"
mode. That seems to serve two distinct purposes:

1) Allow the current application to make maximum use of screen
real estate
2) Prevent the user from being distracted by other applications

Personally I see little benefit in either of these, partly
because of the size of screen I have - for example, I don't
really like working with a Safari window that is bigger than
about half the area of my screen, it is just too far to scan
my eyes back and forth to take it all in:-)

Huan...

[snip]

So, for example, if you have Safari open to slightly less than half the
width of your screen, do you ever wish you didn't have to scroll down? Or
even worse, scroll horizontally? How big is your monitor?

Jolly Roger...

Even on my MacBook Pro,I rarely, if ever, need to scroll horizontally.
Scrolling down has never bothered me that I can recall.

Ian Gregory...

I have a 20" iMac (1680 x 1050 pixels). Generally I run Safari
at about 60% of screen width and 80% of screen hight. At that

Michelle Steiner...

I have a 17" iMac (1440 by 900); I run Safari at whatever width the web
page is. One click on the green button does it.

size I tend to find that I don't often need to scroll horizontally
and vertical scrolling doesn't really bother me. I ocassionally
make the window bigger to get rid of scroll bars. I can easily
fit six default sized terminal windows on the desktop with no
overlap.

I also like a smallish Safari window, and it does become annoying enough
that I am frequently forced to enlarge it. Part of my problem is that I
make Safari use no less than 14 point text. Lots of websites look lousy

The New Guy...

You might like Opera. Its wonderful with zooming text/images
uniformly. I believe its the only browser that accomplishes that.
All the others only zoom the text.

Huan...

I have Opera. It is useful for web design, if you want to see how your
page looks with different settings. However Safari seems to run faster
than any other browser I've tried, so I use Safari. Like you, I enjoy
large fonts, but I also like lots of things to be visible, so I only
enlarge fonts for things that have lots of text to read. Terminal is set
to use Monaco 16 point, and Safari is not allowed to use smaller than 14
point!

this way and the need to scroll horizontally or resize the window happens
a lot. My fault, of course, but I can't help but wish web designers would
improve fluidity.

Most evenings I use Terminal, Safari, iChat and EyeTV, all open in small
windows. But since I have a 17" monitor, there's lots of overlapping.

Because I tend to shift my attention between different applications
very frequently it just seems easier to have them all visible at once,
probably because it reduces the cognitive effort of context switching.

If I was spending a while in a single application with multiple active
windows (palletes etc) I might hide other apps temporarily, but that
would be an exception rather than the rule, and just to be clear,
although it might achieve the same basic purpose as running full
screen in Windows, what is actually going on behind the scenes is
very different.

I would consider it a bad habit to insist on having only one application
visible at any one time, since it fails to make maximum use of the
multitasking ability of the machine (and the user). I would suggest
to switchers that they try to break this habit (if they have it) and
see how they get on. The toolbar shows you quite clearly which
application is active and the distraction factor is probably not
nearly as important as people might think - unless of course something
is moving or flashing in a visible window of another application:-)

This is probably why I still haven't managed to get into the habit
of running GNU screen, despite its myriad benefits. I prefer to
have half a dozen terminal windows open doing different things rather
than a single one with a screen session running six shells that I can
switch between. Again, that is partly due to the large high-res screen.
If I was forced to use an old vt100 I would regret my unfamiliarity with
screen.

Michelle Steiner...

Why then are you advocating opening a window to make it wider than
necessary, and wasting monitor space?

Windows users get into the habit of seeing applications take the
entire screen because MDI mode is so prevalent on Windows.
Inevitably, when Windows users start using Mac OS, they say they feel
lost seeing other stuff behind the application they are using -
despite the fact that there is really not much to gain by making
something like a word processor, for instance, take the entire screen.
Yet they still want to do that just because it feels more comfortable.
The reality is there's no need for full-screen applications the
majority of the time, with the exception of just a few, like maybe a
photo editing/viewing app, and even then it's questionable whether it
really needs to be in full-screen mode 100% of the time. You'll find
you can be much more productive without the nonsense that is MDI mode.
The majority of people who have used both Windows and Mac OS will tell
you the same.

Joey DoWop Dee...

And you have hit the nail on the head. I found myself going through the same
adjustment-phobia you describe, as well as the whole (dare I bring it up
again?) Trash-vs-Recycle bin usage issue. I now know that I can empty my
Trash with impunity; that has now extended to the PC as well, where I used to
consider it a, well, "recycle bin". It's such a minor "convenience" I don't
miss it on the Mac, and in fact I like the freedom, so to speak, of not
having to go check what's in there before I empty it.

Jolly Roger...

I hear that. I see my Windows-only friends at work keeping literally
gigabytes of stuff in their recycle bins and never emptying them until
they run out of hard disk space or something equally tragic happens.
Pure insanity! : )

On my Mac now I almost always have all kinds of windows open here and there,
and it's much easier to work with, whereas on my PC I'm still more inclined
to go with the full-screen, even though there's really no need to. There are
a few times on the Mac when it seems there are too many distractions behind
what I'm focusing on, but that's where "Hide others" comes in.

Jolly Roger...

Exactly. And I find myself using Hide Others only every so often.

I figure rather than trying to make my Mac work like a PC (why would I want
to?) it's better for *me* to adapt. It's keeping me young. Well, almost.

Jolly Roger...

Yeah I think once you just let go of the bad habit, you start to
embrace it and it's only then you really can see the advantages of it.
; )

Jolly Roger...

You are skirting the fact that Windows users typically want *all*
applications (as opposed to particular specialized applications) to be
full screen. Like I said, there are, of course, exceptions - but they
are just that: exceptions. InDesign may be one such exception, surely.

Tell me, do you prefer to make your text document, email message, news
group message, and Finder windows full screen as well?

TaliesinSoft...

I think we need to differentiate between "full screen" and "other
applications hidden". There are many times when working with an application
that I prefer to have all other applications hidden even though the active
application may not be using the full screen.

Jolly Roger...

That's not what this discussion is about though. The OP manually
configures as many applications as he can to be full screen. Then he
complains that the abundance of white is "too bright".

TaliesinSoft...

I thought it was amply clear that I was not responding in the context of the
original posting in this thread but to your stating "You need to just break
yourself of that bad habit." in response to The New Guy's stating that he
preferred to have applications display full screen.

Jolly Roger...

Yes - to me it seems you are trying to take a comment I made out of
context (the bad habit is that the OP tries to make Mac OS X behave
like WIndows by making every application take up the full screen) and
apply that comment to your own idea, which you admit is not the same
thing. Its like you are trying to change the meaning of what I said,
and that's not okay with me.

TaliesinSoft...

I interpreted your "bad habit" comment to mean that it is not good to have an
application occupy a full screen, and I responded with instances where full
screen, at least to me, is preferable. You queried me as to whether or not I
would full screen or not in a number of instances such as newsreading and
mail. I responded to each instance but you interestingly didn't comment in
return. I am not trying to change the meaning of what you said but trying,
via this discourse, to understand precisely what you meant. Isn't it true in
normal face-to-face conversations that sometimes clarification is needed so
that one party fully understands what the other party intended?

Jolly Roger...

Ok well I'm telling what I meant - the OP, like many Windows users who
are new to Mac OS, expects and desires Mac OS to behave like the
Windows MDI mode which they are accustomed. I consider trying to use
Mac OS as if it were Windows (by manually implementing your own "MDI
mode") to be a bad habit.

As for the presented list....

text document - not full screen but other applications usually hidden.

email message - I use Mail at full screen although when an individual message
is displayed it is not full screen but it does overlay the main full screen
Mail window.

news group message - I use Hogwasher which I have set to occupy the full
screen, albeit with separate windows for Unread, Browser, Incoming/Outgoing
Message, and Thread.

Finder windows - not full screen and when open often overlaying the windows
of currently unhidden applications.

I'm also one that maintains a pristine desktop, that is, when no applications
are active there is nothing to be seen on the desktop but a picture.
(Currently that picture cycles through a collection of sunsets in Ireland)
Even the dock is hidden, popping up when the cursor goes to the bottom of the
screen.

My significant other maintains a desktop full of randomly placed and
meaningfully labelled icons. That's not my style but neither is my style
hers. Neither of us is right and neither of us is wrong. We just have
different preferences in how we work at our Macs.

Michelle Steiner...

You can set the background color of Finder windows to anything you want,
as well.

BTW, you seem do this a lot. The rest of us would appreciate it if you
would make the effort to provide more information when you ask your
questions so we don't have to pull your teeth or guess what you mean.
If it's hard for us to answer your questions, and you just continue
doing this, eventually we'll just get tired of answering them. 'm sure
that's not what you want, right?

The New Guy...

Not exactly........kind of defeats the purpose of posting here...:)

Ian Gregory...

If you have an LCD monitor then the amount of electricity it uses
is dominated by the backlight. Indeed it is possible that an LCD
screen itself could require more power to produce a black pixel
than a white one (such a screen might be all white when switched
off but you wouldn't know because the backlight would also be off -
this would depend on the exact technology used but I am no expert
on such things so don't take this as definitive).

Turning down the screen brightness (in System Preferences) has no
effect on black pixels and the same effect on white ones as altering
their values to an appropriate level of grey - and it *does* save
electricity. Three problems:

1) Even minimum brightness on an iMac is more than you might want
if you work in a darkened room.

2) Reducing brightness obviously reduces brightness of all pixies,
not just white background ones.

3) If you preferred to work with a medium fuscia background rather
than a medium gray one then it would be a non-starter (well you
could probably edit the colour profile but that would make photos
etc look rather strange).

I am not aware of any solution that would affect white
backgrounds in the same way for all applications while
leaving all other pixels alone. As others have suggested,
there may be application specific controls for certain
applications.