Mac OSX Desktop [Archive]

Riffer

July 27th, 2008, 12:27 AM

Sporkman

July 27th, 2008, 12:35 AM

Macs are one of those things that takes getting used to. Having recently introduced myself to one (which I bought for my wife), I found the interface to be funny & weird.

However, in general it's highly regarded by many, so it can't be all bad. Different strokes.

init1

July 27th, 2008, 12:40 AM

Theres been a couple of threads (probably way more) that the basic premise is that the MAC has the best looking desktop out of the box. Sorry I just have to disagree, I find it just way to over the top. The wallpaper is jarring and boring and the dock is just to visually "busy". It looks like the whole point of the desktop is to show of eye candy to the determent of its functionality.

I (and I believe many others) like a clean looking desktop, straight forward and intuitive to use. I don't want my icons to be bouncing around like MS paper clips. I like my desktop to be uncluttered, and while a dock can be fun, having it stretch across the whole desktop is just a waste of space.

While I agree that improvements can and should be made to the out of the box Ubuntu desktop, I don't think that we should use OSX as a yardstick.
Yeah I'm not a big fan of flashy desktops. That's why I always disable desktop effects in Ubuntu. *sigh* I still have a Performa 575 that I bought 6 years ago (it was old then). I love that thing to death. It's slow, and it can't do much, but I have some good memories of it. This was way back, before the fancy desktop.

Riffer

July 27th, 2008, 12:43 AM

Woormy

July 27th, 2008, 12:52 AM

My Linux desktop may be a little messy but it's MY mess. It's configured to match the mess in my head.

wersdaluv

July 27th, 2008, 02:45 AM

Riffer

July 27th, 2008, 03:09 AM

OS X looks great. It really does. Well, this might be relative to whoever judges it but its visual consistency sure is the best. It's visually consistent from its applications' look and feel to the Mac hardware's look and feel.

Ok it might be consistent, and that might be something that Ubuntu/Linux works on. But consistency does not mean visually pleasing or functional.

Oh I'm sure for some the look and feel of OSX is great. I'm not one of them and I believe there are many who agree. I wouldn't want to have OSX as the yardstick for developing a Ubuntu desktop.

bigbrovar

July 27th, 2008, 03:21 AM

I dont think either apple or windows should be used as a yardstick for measuring Linux .. that attitude would only create an OS that is second best .. yeah we might get inspiration from some cool things in mac/windows .. but for us to get there we have to innovate our own technology .come out with fantastic newer and better way of doing things .make the OS more stable ,secured and user friendly (as if its not user friendly enough) . apple dont use any one has a yardstick . they just do what they feel is best .. and market it .. we need more innovation on Linux .. and most of it will come from within

billgoldberg

July 27th, 2008, 03:23 AM

I feel the same way as the OP.

If I won a mac pc, I'd run ubuntu on it.

I would never buy one myself, I don't like awarding companies for their vendor lock-in, drm infested, dumbed down mess they call an apple computer.

Macintosh Sauce

July 27th, 2008, 03:31 AM

Theres been a couple of threads (probably way more) that the basic premise is that the MAC has the best looking desktop out of the box. Sorry I just have to disagree, I find it just way to over the top. The wallpaper is jarring and boring and the dock is just to visually "busy". It looks like the whole point of the desktop is to show of eye candy to the determent of its functionality.

I (and I believe many others) like a clean looking desktop, straight forward and intuitive to use. I don't want my icons to be bouncing around like MS paper clips. I like my desktop to be uncluttered, and while a dock can be fun, having it stretch across the whole desktop is just a waste of space.

While I agree that improvements can and should be made to the out of the box Ubuntu desktop, I don't think that we should use OSX as a yardstick.

FUD is all you are spreading...

I like a clean Desktop, so tell me what is wrong with this Desktop?

http://www.jamesnrhodes.com/personal/james/macosx/desktops/macprodesktop_07272008_small.png (http://www.jamesnrhodes.com/personal/james/macosx/desktops/macprodesktop_07272008.png)

You can change your Desktop wallpaper - your choice. You can have the HD icons appear on the Desktop or not - your choice. You can have non-animated icons in the Dock - your choice. You can put whatever you want in the Dock - your choice. Getting the picture yet?

Yes, Mac OS X Leopard is so bad. That is why Windows and even Linux users try to copy it verbatim.

billgoldberg

July 27th, 2008, 03:38 AM

FUD is all you are spreading...

I like a clean Desktop, so tell me what is wrong with this Desktop?

http://www.jamesnrhodes.com/personal/james/macosx/desktops/macprodesktop_07272008_small.png (http://www.jamesnrhodes.com/personal/james/macosx/desktops/macprodesktop_07272008.png)

You can change your Desktop wallpaper - your choice. You can have the HD icons appear on the Desktop or not - your choice. You can have non-animated icons in the Dock - your choice. You can put whatever you want in the Dock - your choice. Getting the picture yet?

Yes, Mac OS X Leopard is so bad. That is why Windows and even Linux users try to copy it verbatim.

That desktop isn't clean at all.

This is a clean desktop:

http://linuxowns.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/flux123.png?w=300&h=240 (http://linuxowns.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/flux123.png)

Copying the look of an OS (a small minority is only doing that btw), doesn't mean OSX is good. Just that some think it looks good. I'm not one of them.

hanzomon4

July 27th, 2008, 04:09 AM

FUD is all you are spreading...

I like a clean Desktop, so tell me what is wrong with this Desktop?

http://www.jamesnrhodes.com/personal/james/macosx/desktops/macprodesktop_07272008_small.png (http://www.jamesnrhodes.com/personal/james/macosx/desktops/macprodesktop_07272008.png)

You can change your Desktop wallpaper - your choice. You can have the HD icons appear on the Desktop or not - your choice. You can have non-animated icons in the Dock - your choice. You can put whatever you want in the Dock - your choice. Getting the picture yet?

Yes, Mac OS X Leopard is so bad. That is why Windows and even Linux users try to copy it verbatim.

Word, but you're wasting your breath. Whenever people start describing OSX as dumbed down, dysfunctional, and/or cluttered you will find no reasoning with them.

speedwell68

July 27th, 2008, 04:37 AM

I am one of those that have tried to slightly emulate a Mac OSX desktop. The icon set is nice as is the window frames, but I have to say the dock is annoyingly pointless, I find it better to have nice tidy icons on the left and right.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/Speedwell68/Screenshot-6.png

Riffer

July 27th, 2008, 04:41 AM

FUD is all you are spreading...

I like a clean Desktop, so tell me what is wrong with this Desktop?

http://www.jamesnrhodes.com/personal/james/macosx/desktops/macprodesktop_07272008_small.png (http://www.jamesnrhodes.com/personal/james/macosx/desktops/macprodesktop_07272008.png)

You can change your Desktop wallpaper - your choice. You can have the HD icons appear on the Desktop or not - your choice. You can have non-animated icons in the Dock - your choice. You can put whatever you want in the Dock - your choice. Getting the picture yet?

Yes, Mac OS X Leopard is so bad. That is why Windows and even Linux users try to copy it verbatim.

I'm afraid you missed the point of my post. I was talking about "out of the box" desktops. I stand by what I said in regards to the default OSX look.

Your tweaks look nice, "billgoldberg's" looks incredible. Mine is pretty basic. And as you pointed out, its about choice. And I think that is the yard stick we should be using.

schauerlich

July 27th, 2008, 04:46 AM

FUD is all you are spreading...

I like a clean Desktop, so tell me what is wrong with this Desktop?

(image)

You can change your Desktop wallpaper - your choice. You can have the HD icons appear on the Desktop or not - your choice. You can have non-animated icons in the Dock - your choice. You can put whatever you want in the Dock - your choice. Getting the picture yet?

Yes, Mac OS X Leopard is so bad. That is why Windows and even Linux users try to copy it verbatim.

That's a bad user, not a bad OS. He's got his whole /home directory in his dock... I don't know why anyone would want that. I just have my applications folder.

Really, an OS is what you make of it. All it takes is a willingness to adjust. I use both OS X and Ubuntu on a regular basis, and I wouldn't give either of them up. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.

qazwsx

July 27th, 2008, 05:23 AM

Totally agree. I find some icons in OS X butt ugly (folders).At the same time I am big fan of Oxygen and KDE :)(which resembles nowadays OS X in some way). I hate docks and I like to play with configuration files (hidden folders! There is probably no way to do it with GUI (OK sometimes I prefer terminal)?).

schauerlich

July 27th, 2008, 05:27 AM

And anyways, I beat you guys at desktop minimalism

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=79104&d=1217150677

wmii ftw. :D

And it's available for OS X, too.

madjr

July 27th, 2008, 05:33 AM

Theres been a couple of threads (probably way more) that the basic premise is that the MAC has the best looking desktop out of the box. Sorry I just have to disagree, I find it just way to over the top. The wallpaper is jarring and boring and the dock is just to visually "busy". It looks like the whole point of the desktop is to show of eye candy to the determent of its functionality.

I (and I believe many others) like a clean looking desktop, straight forward and intuitive to use. I don't want my icons to be bouncing around like MS paper clips. I like my desktop to be uncluttered, and while a dock can be fun, having it stretch across the whole desktop is just a waste of space.

While I agree that improvements can and should be made to the out of the box Ubuntu desktop, I don't think that we should use OSX as a yardstick.

I think you don't get the idea Mark has been praising

is not only the looks and consistency, it's the entire Mac experience.

He wants tat for Ubuntu too. A really functional and mature desktop. Something that can compete head to head in every department, not just looks.

i too think we can archive this in 2 years, just in time to compete with windows 7 and probably even over come it

-grubby

July 27th, 2008, 05:38 AM

And anyways, I beat you guys at desktop minimalism

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=79104&d=1217150677

wmii ftw. :D

And it's available for OS X, too.

I could beat you if my desktop didn't look exactly the same..

I could do that if I removed the panel, which has the sole purpose of displaying a menu and my tag space list

3rdalbum

July 27th, 2008, 09:07 AM

I beat you all - I've got a much cleaner desktop.

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=79122&stc=1&d=1217163990

the8thstar

July 27th, 2008, 09:21 AM

I think we can use some of OS X nice additions to our own benefit in Linux.

My desktop is as follows :

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=78905&d=1216998335

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=78906&d=1216998335

I know Billgoldberg doesn't like it much (hi there BTW), but it's a smooth, uncluttered way to run my desktop.

I believe the best feature of OS X is not so much the dock or the looks, but the in-depth integration between applications. Gnome, KDE and the others should strive for that.

Luffield

July 27th, 2008, 09:41 AM

I use a G4 iMac as a secondary computer at work. I don't really need it, but I alwyas thought it was the most beautiful computer I ever saw and now I have a chance to use one, so why not?

It has OS X 10.3.9 and I must say it's not as good as I thought it would be. I don't like the dock, keyboard shortcuts are very confusing (well, they are for me, I use Windows and Ubuntu and their keyboard shortcuts are pretty much the same) and I have yet to find the place where all the applications can be launched from (this one is really insane IMO). Oh, and Gnome Do is waaaay better than quicksilver :D
There are a lot of things I do like about it: I think OS X looks great, I like the menu bar at the top, the system preferences app is excellent, installing software is pretty easy after you learn how to do it (not as good as a package manager, though) and there are other small things I like about it.

But the bottom line is that I prefer Gnome and maybe even Windows XP over OS X. If there's anything in OS X that Ubuntu should really have it's the ultra-polished looks. On functionality, for me, it's already ahead.

tubezninja

July 27th, 2008, 12:03 PM

That's a bad user, not a bad OS. He's got his whole /home directory in his dock... I don't know why anyone would want that. I just have my applications folder.

Because that's the way he works. If that makes him productive, then how does that make him a "bad user?"

To me a perfectly blank desktop is a sign that someone is spending too much time practicing austerity that they can't work or play effectively. But I'm not going to go forcing people to put things there. If that's how someone wants to work, fine. People have a right to work joylessly. :)

hanzomon4

July 27th, 2008, 12:33 PM

But the bottom line is that I prefer Gnome and maybe even Windows XP over OS X. If there's anything in OS X that Ubuntu should really have it's the ultra-polished looks. On functionality, for me, it's already ahead.

I think the look of Ubuntu stands up quiet well to my OSX. It's the smooth and seamless integration of the os that's missing. I think that has a lot to do with apps, even the whole os, crashing constantly in Ubuntu and scatter brain ideas like a million different ways to fuckup... errr, play audio.

If Ubuntu was as stable as OSX on any hardware(it may be, please let me know) it would give OSX a run for it's money.

Riffer

July 27th, 2008, 12:33 PM

I think you don't get the idea Mark has been praising

is not only the looks and consistency, it's the entire Mac experience.

He wants tat for Ubuntu too. A really functional and mature desktop. Something that can compete head to head in every department, not just looks.

i too think we can archive this in 2 years, just in time to compete with windows 7 and probably even over come it

You have to explain this "Mac experience" to me. Every time I've ever used a Mac I found it to be an incredibly frustrating experience. Things were set up in a way that I found counter intuitive, slow and in general a pain in the butt to use. Some talk about the "in depth integration" please explain that to me also. All I've seen and heard is that apps all have same look, but that you still have the same problems import/exporting files between apps.

The argument that OSX is a more Mature desktop is something I just don't buy. Slicker yes, but Mature no.

Riffer

July 27th, 2008, 12:37 PM

I think the look of Ubuntu stands up quiet well to my OSX. It's the smooth and seamless integration of the os that's missing. I think that has a lot to do with apps, even the whole os, crashing constantly in Ubuntu and scatter brain ideas like a million different ways to fuckup... errr, play audio.

If Ubuntu was as stable as OSX on any hardware(it may be, please let me know) it would give OSX a run for it's money.

I guess I'm a lucky one, other then a tweak to my audio (putting a # in front of a line in a config file) everything just worked.

Luffield

July 27th, 2008, 01:12 PM

It's the smooth and seamless integration of the os that's missing. I think that has a lot to do with apps, even the whole os, crashing constantly in Ubuntu and scatter brain ideas like a million different ways to fuckup... errr, play audio.
Good point. I agree.

the8thstar

July 27th, 2008, 01:31 PM

Ditto.

As a basic user, the only significant difference you can make is how you customize the look-and-feel. With all the tools available, that's pretty much taken care of at this point.

Now, it's the interoperability between apps that is beyond the control of the end-user. This is where we still have problems and conflicts. I guess Gnome and KDE could enforce some rules for their desktops, to allow control and deployability of all software.

Now, try and tell that to the nerd living in the basement who's putting some code together to get a video driver working at version 0.0.25 ... good luck.

Mr. Picklesworth

July 27th, 2008, 01:43 PM

I just won't be able to use MacOS until they fix their painfully broken mouse acceleration (http://db.tidbits.com/article/8893). It's a bit of a shame, since I do want to explore it, but the OS really, honestly hurts my hand.

I still don't understand the 'easy to install' thing. How is dragging an application to the Applications folder learnable or easy? Drag & Drop is not an easy operation on a newish iMac: The useless mouse acceleration makes this an operation which requires one to lift the mouse at least once. That, combined with the design of the included mouse that causes the button to depress when the mouse is lifted, makes it very difficult for new users.
Simply running a downloaded installer makes a lot more sense to me. (Although it would be nice if we could stream deb packages from a remote location to overcome the issue of needing double the hard drive space to install something).
Granted, gdebi needs some work to make that extra easy. It could be designed with more of a click-through interface, always ending with the option to run an installed application, which would solve that "now how do I run it already?!" issue that the Mac solves so nicely.

Having said that, though, installing an application is never the end of it on a Mac, either. One must also create a shortcut to it if he wants to actually run it without digging through Applications all the time. I encounter an astounding number of people new to Mac who think the dock lists all of their applications. It does not, either automatically or from the start! One must create shortcuts there manually by another drag & drop operation (or by running the app and choosing "keep on dock" via the context menu).

Apple's application management does not seem as clever to me as people claim. The system does nothing to categorize these, and from what I can see (sorry, all fairly click glances here) they have a single name: Their file name. Thus, searching for "pictures", "camera" or "photographs" in Spotlight does not turn up iPhoto. "email" does not give us "Mail". "Word processor" or "write a letter"? Nothing. This is all very one-dimensional.

/usr/share/applications is our Applications folder, and it has a fantastic system of organizing these applications known as the .desktop entry standard. Translations, descriptive names, generic names, categories, bug report data, MIME types... all nicely indexed by your respective Search systems and cleanly available for menus and search systems.

schauerlich

July 27th, 2008, 05:24 PM

I just won't be able to use MacOS until they fix their painfully broken mouse acceleration (http://db.tidbits.com/article/8893). It's a bit of a shame, since I do want to explore it, but the OS really, honestly hurts my hand.

I have never noticed a difference going between OS X, Ubuntu and XP. Maybe I'm just a freak.

Having said that, though, installing an application is never the end of it on a Mac, either. One must also create a shortcut to it if he wants to actually run it without digging through Applications all the time.
The alternative is to have the installer automatically put a shortcut in the dock and/or the desktop. Then you end up with people with 40 program shortcuts on their destop. I rarely have to open up my /Applications folder, between the dock and Spotlight... Cmd+space and type the first few letters of the program name, hit enter and you're there.

I encounter an astounding number of people new to Mac who think the dock lists all of their applications. It does not, either automatically or from the start!
Sounds like a pebkac to me... The dock is like the taskbar in XP. /Applications is like Start>All Programs, except easier to read.

schauerlich

July 27th, 2008, 05:34 PM

I beat you all - I've got a much cleaner desktop

You could edit your PS1 to just inclue the $. Ultimate clean desktop!

zekopeko

July 27th, 2008, 06:19 PM

i think that we should make GTK/QT apps more consistent across desktops in their looks. there is a qt engine that makes qt4 apps look like gtk apps. the toolkit should use the users icon theme and look at home on the desktop of your choosing.

acelin

July 27th, 2008, 06:21 PM

cardinals_fan

July 27th, 2008, 07:54 PM

Never used the desktop have you?
I have used the desktop, and it is a bit of a disaster to navigate with the keyboard.

acelin

July 27th, 2008, 08:00 PM

I have used the desktop, and it is a bit of a disaster to navigate with the keyboard.

Coming from a PC keyboard - it can be. I hate how they have "command+c" fo copy and command for a lot of items, when we all know "ctrl" is better :D

cardinals_fan

July 27th, 2008, 08:04 PM

Coming from a PC keyboard - it can be. I hate how they have "command+c" fo copy and command for a lot of items, when we all know "ctrl" is better :D
I was on a Mac with a broken mouse, and launching/using apps with just the keyboard was truly horrific. I realize that most people's Mac-mice work fine, but, as a keyboard-heavy user, it disturbed me.

acelin

July 27th, 2008, 08:25 PM

I was on a Mac with a broken mouse, and launching/using apps with just the keyboard was truly horrific. I realize that most people's Mac-mice work fine, but, as a keyboard-heavy user, it disturbed me.

Ill agree there. Using a keyboard is much faster for a lot of things - surprisingly image editing is one of them! We can all agree Ubuntu is better in this department!

cardinals_fan

July 27th, 2008, 08:37 PM

Ill agree there. Using a keyboard is much faster for a lot of things - surprisingly image editing is one of them! We can all agree Ubuntu is better in this department!
Although GNOME is, in my opinion, a bit lacking. Xfce and KDE 3.5 (not sure about 4) both have more configurable keybindings.

schauerlich

July 27th, 2008, 09:42 PM

Coming from a PC keyboard - it can be. I hate how they have "command+c" fo copy and command for a lot of items, when we all know "ctrl" is better :D

I actually find it a lot easier to start keyboard combos with my thumb than my pinky. It's much easier to hit Command+Q or Command+W than Ctrl+Q or Ctrl+W -- or really Ctrl+anything, for that matter. It's always awkward to stretch across with your pinky anchored, and your thumbs moves more independent of the rest of your fingers so you have more of a range of motion. When I use gnome I map my win key (which on a mac is where Alt is on a PC keyboard) to Ctrl, although I'm still looking for a way to make ctrl map to super. Doesn't matter, I use wmii more anyhow. :)

D-EJ915

July 27th, 2008, 09:51 PM

I actually find it a lot easier to start keyboard combos with my thumb than my pinky. It's much easier to hit Command+Q or Command+W than Ctrl+Q or Ctrl+W -- or really Ctrl+anything, for that matter. It's always awkward to stretch across with your pinky anchored, and your thumbs moves more independent of the rest of your fingers so you have more of a range of motion. When I use gnome I map my win key (which on a mac is where Alt is on a PC keyboard) to Ctrl, although I'm still looking for a way to make ctrl map to super. Doesn't matter, I use wmii more anyhow. :)
swap control to the "craps lock" where it was supposed to be from the beginning, it's infinitely superior in that position. I've banished craps lock from my computers because it serves no purpose. Or get a sun "unix" layout keyboard where the keys are moved to more sensible positions. here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/enthauptet/bin/type6.jpg) is a huge pic of mine so you can see the layout. The sound keys work in ubuntu as well ;)

I've realized the reason why people that are on windows and mac OS always want huge monitors is there is no half-decent way to switch between windows that are overlapping! Raise/Lower function is the most useful thing I have ever encountered and has increased the usability of my systems and productivity several times over.

schauerlich

July 27th, 2008, 10:06 PM

I've realized the reason why people that are on windows and mac OS always want huge monitors is there is no half-decent way to switch between windows that are overlapping! Raise/Lower function is the most useful thing I have ever encountered and has increased the usability of my systems and productivity several times over.

That's why I use wmii.

gletob

July 28th, 2008, 12:22 AM

I think we should make ubuntu look like this

Riffer

July 28th, 2008, 12:25 AM

That is so funny LOL gletob

DeadSuperHero

July 28th, 2008, 12:25 AM

I think we should make ubuntu look like this

I would be one of those people to totally go for an old-school look. Run that baby on some gaming rig, and people would definitely do a double take.

"Are you running...Mac System Software 1?!"

"Why yes, let me show you its 3D capabilities!"

"Whaaaa?!"

Macintosh Sauce

July 28th, 2008, 04:09 AM

That's a bad user, not a bad OS. He's got his whole /home directory in his dock... I don't know why anyone would want that. I just have my applications folder.

Why do I have my /home directory in the Dock? Easy access to everything with hierarchical folders. My preference...

schauerlich

July 28th, 2008, 04:59 AM

Why do I have my /home directory in the Dock? Easy access to everything with hierarchical folders. My preference...

Sorry, that was not meant as an ad hominem attack. I was just saying for those that said that OS X's desktop was cluttered and used that screenshot as an example that it was a user's choice and not the default of the OS or anything.

karellen

July 28th, 2008, 04:59 AM

thisllub

July 28th, 2008, 05:34 AM

Although GNOME is, in my opinion, a bit lacking. Xfce and KDE 3.5 (not sure about 4) both have more configurable keybindings.

My desktop wins.
Hands down.
http://users.tpg.com.au/thisllub//black.png

Openbox is the grand champion of keybindings.
Combined with Katapult I can start any app that I regularly use in about 5 keystrokes.
I have a one key binding for a terminal.
I also use keybindings to size and place windows.

A typical command would be;
<Start-f><Start e>
Opens Firefox and sizes it to 90% of the right monitor size and moves it to the right top of the right monitor.

No ugly, unnecessary menus or docks.
Ctrl-menu gives me a list of all my open windows and typing the first letter of the title takes me to that window.

If I really need a menu I click the right button on something black.
What could be easier.

The Mac interface annoys me even more than Gnome.
Everything is slow.

Riffer

July 28th, 2008, 09:40 AM

am I the only one who thinks the all this talk is useless? I mean the premise it's flawed from the beginning. people have preferences, likes and dislikes. different ones. what seems cluttered and flashy for me it may seem organized and nice for someone else; the opposite is also true. so why bother with the debate over which OS has the best default look, as long as it can be changed with a couple of mouse clicks?:confused:

My OP was in reaction to several threads where the premise is that Mac OSX is the leader in desktop design, I disagree. I would really hate to see the future of Linux desktops based on how OSX does things.

Joeb454

July 28th, 2008, 09:42 AM

Moved to Mac OS X sub-forum.

Note: Please don't start bashing Mac's, else the thread is likely to get closed.

gletob

July 28th, 2008, 01:11 PM

Moved to Mac OS X sub-forum.

Note: Please don't start bashing Mac's, else the thread is likely to get closed.

*macs suck*
Just kidding all oses have their benefits

karellen

July 28th, 2008, 01:29 PM

My OP was in reaction to several threads where the premise is that Mac OSX is the leader in desktop design, I disagree. I would really hate to see the future of Linux desktops based on how OSX does things.

well everybody is entitled to an opinion, design is something entirely subjective ;)

the8thstar

July 29th, 2008, 10:56 PM

My desktop wins.
Hands down.
http://users.tpg.com.au/thisllub//black.png

Openbox is the grand champion of keybindings.
Combined with Katapult I can start any app that I regularly use in about 5 keystrokes.
I have a one key binding for a terminal.
I also use keybindings to size and place windows.

A typical command would be;
<Start-f><Start e>
Opens Firefox and sizes it to 90% of the right monitor size and moves it to the right top of the right monitor.

No ugly, unnecessary menus or docks.
Ctrl-menu gives me a list of all my open windows and typing the first letter of the title takes me to that window.

If I really need a menu I click the right button on something black.
What could be easier.

The Mac interface annoys me even more than Gnome.
Everything is slow.

Man... why do you even have a screen?

the.dark.lord

July 30th, 2008, 08:51 AM

I beat you all - I've got a much cleaner desktop.

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=79122&stc=1&d=1217163990

:lolflag: You're the man! :)

SunnyRabbiera

July 30th, 2008, 09:01 AM

For me I am still doing the windows way of things at least in desktop icons, I still have a bad habit of loading my desktop up with a lot of icons.
In the past I have tried to minimise this by making panels with a bunch of launchers in them and such but old habits are hard to break.

Joeb454

July 30th, 2008, 09:04 AM

I quite like the lack of icon's (I don't have any on the Mac Desktop's at Uni either, except the ones that were there when I first logged on)

SunnyRabbiera

July 30th, 2008, 09:12 AM

its all in preference, my preference is to have a number of icons on the desktop as its what I am used to... actually I rather dislike a empty desktop, but I dont like overly messy.
At most I have 10 icons on the desktop at a time.

Joeb454

July 30th, 2008, 09:14 AM

I see what you mean. I have 10 icons on my Vista desktop currently, and 2 on my Ubuntu one :)

[/offtopic]

SunnyRabbiera

July 30th, 2008, 09:22 AM

Well its just a matter of quick access, I like to have my three main browsers listed on the desktop, firefox, epiphany and IE under wine.
My mail client (thunderbird)
a link to my home folder, computer, mounted drives and a trash bin.
Thats my main theme, sure I can use the main menu to acces the places submenu to go to my home and computer but I always used to have a my computer and my documents link on my desktop in my windows days.
My main reason to keep so many icons on the desktop these days is my husband who uses my computer to check his email every so often (when he doesnt feel like firing up his laptop)
He used to have a load of icons on his windows screen, 76% of his screen was nothing but icons before he made his transition to linux.
Now only 5 to 10% of his desktop is icons.

Redrazor39

August 1st, 2008, 01:40 PM

OS X looks great. It really does. Well, this might be relative to whoever judges it but its visual consistency sure is the best. It's visually consistent from its applications' look and feel to the Mac hardware's look and feel.

Regarding Consistency...

http://yankeeschick.mlblogs.com/yankees_fans_are_the_true/images/consistency.jpg

karellen

August 3rd, 2008, 03:08 AM

icons on the desktop seem very convenient to me. I have around 10 icons on Vista's desktop, and more on Mandriva. I find it faster to double click instead of typing the first letters of the application I want to launch

crhylove

August 3rd, 2008, 06:41 AM

It doesn't come default in BROWN and ORANGE. Oh and also, the software vendor has complete control of the hardware.

But other than that, Ubuntu is far nicer in every way, and runs more of the software I need and more efficiently by far.

That said, Apple is way out in front with the iPhone, even if I hate their DRM and vendor lock-in with every fiber of my body.

schauerlich

August 3rd, 2008, 02:52 PM

It doesn't come default in BROWN and ORANGE. Oh and also, the software vendor has complete control of the hardware.

Since when it Apple not a hardware vendor? They're just as much a hardware vendor as a software vendor, much more so than Microsoft. Their first product was an assembled motherboard with someone else's BASIC on it.

handy

August 5th, 2008, 09:04 PM

In reply to the OP:

There is absolutely no accounting for taste.

Anyone who would impose their opinions on such a topic obviously has no respect for the personal freedoms & rights of others to make choices based on what appeals to them.

The same attitudes in the extreme lead to fascism & dictators.

The OP is flame bait!

the8thstar

August 5th, 2008, 09:12 PM

You can bicker all you want but I have yet to see a graphic interface in Gnome or KDE that beats the looks and integration of OS X.

That's a challenge that has YET to be won.

handy

August 5th, 2008, 09:31 PM

You can bicker all you want but I have yet to see a graphic interface in Gnome or KDE that beats the looks and integration of OS X.

That's a challenge that has YET to be won.

Personal taste! :lolflag:

Being an owner/user of both OSX & multiple other Linux/BSD's, I have found that they all have their pro's & con's.

At the individual level, the inherent chauvinistic tendencies of humanity require a teeny amount of willpower to overcome - all a person has to do is identify the problem & then choose to fix it!

the8thstar

August 7th, 2008, 05:15 PM

Personal taste! :lolflag:

Being an owner/user of both OSX & multiple other Linux/BSD's, I have found that they all have their pro's & con's.

At the individual level, the inherent chauvinistic tendencies of humanity require a teeny amount of willpower to overcome - all a person has to do is identify the problem & then choose to fix it!

Pros and cons, yes.

Interface integration, NO.

Individual level.. etc. What are you talking about?

handy

August 7th, 2008, 07:47 PM

Individual level.. etc. What are you talking about?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chauvinism

karellen

August 8th, 2008, 06:02 PM

handy

August 9th, 2008, 08:39 AM

this should be made a sticky in the community cafe ;)

Just saw a spelling mistake too! :lolflag:

3rdalbum

August 12th, 2008, 03:27 AM

Interface integration, NO.

1. Does this matter?

2. The same interface integration which sees Aqua, brushed stainless steel and two different shades of "titanium" co-existing on a desktop?

Interface integration is something that the Gnome and KDE desktops do well - especially KDE with Gnome applications. Useful functions (e-mail, calendars, system info etc) available from your desktop without having to install widgets and enter another mode like on Mac OS X.

But does it matter? Well, if it mattered to you, you would already be suggesting ways that OS X could improve its own...

the8thstar

August 12th, 2008, 08:45 PM

1. Does this matter?

2. The same interface integration which sees Aqua, brushed stainless steel and two different shades of "titanium" co-existing on a desktop?

Interface integration is something that the Gnome and KDE desktops do well - especially KDE with Gnome applications. Useful functions (e-mail, calendars, system info etc) available from your desktop without having to install widgets and enter another mode like on Mac OS X.

But does it matter? Well, if it mattered to you, you would already be suggesting ways that OS X could improve its own...

It does matter to me. I'm not interested in improving OS X, but in improving Gnome's integration features. You're entitled to your opinion and me to mine.

handy

August 13th, 2008, 09:20 AM

My personal definition of interface integration has very little to do with the visuals of the GUI.

What I appreciate in the MacOS is the general consistency of the location of menu commands & their keyboard shortcuts.

The above has yet to happen within Gnome or KDE & their associated relatives.

What I really don't like about the MacOS is what I consider to be the clumsy practice of positioning
ALL menus in the top screen title bar. Meaning, that in MacOS you can not have any kind of program whatsoever with a menu operating out of its own title bar.

Anyone who has used this system (apart from Steve of course) will find it slower than it need be.

x0as

August 15th, 2008, 10:44 AM

What I really don't like about the MacOS is what I consider to be the clumsy practice of positioning
ALL menus in the top screen title bar. Meaning, that in MacOS you can not have any kind of program whatsoever with a menu operating out of its own title bar.

Yes you can.

http://img37.0x3e.net/2468810595.png

Menu bar at the top is quicker when you get used to it.

handy

August 15th, 2008, 11:02 PM

Yes you can.

http://img37.0x3e.net/2468810595.png

Menu bar at the top is quicker when you get used to it.

Sorry, you may like the front end of the OSX GUI, & I know many do.

Personally I find the Finder to be clumsy in many ways. I much prefer Nautilus, though these days I don't use Gnome I use Openbox under Arch & the directory utility Emelfm2 (http://emelfm2.net/).

schauerlich

August 17th, 2008, 12:51 PM

Yes you can.

Menu bar at the top is quicker when you get used to it.

The GIMP runs under OS X's implementation of X11, not the usual OS X window manager. I prefer the menu bar at the top, too, in most circumstances. The only thing that is annoying is that I have dual monitors, and when a window is in the secondary monitor then I have to mouse over to the main monitor to use the menus. I've seen a way to get the menu bar in a right click menu, but I really would prefer to just have two menu bars. I dunno if that's possible, though.

tel93

August 19th, 2008, 05:29 AM

I can't stand the OS X interface.

- Alt (or apple) tabbing switches between open apps, not windows
- No programmable keybindings
- Opaque resize and move only
- No window dimension screens in the middle
- Horribly inconsistent user interface
- Dock (horribly inefficient, takes up so much space for little function, can only use launchers)
- Impossible to customise, and an UGLY default look (eww, so bubbly)
- Buttons on scroll bars are next to each other
- Cannot press buttons to maximise/raise/move windows etc. You have to use the mouse (UGH!)

However, I love:
- The fonts.

handy

August 19th, 2008, 07:05 AM

& I still think Finder is prehistoric.

Why have Apple not advanced this clumsy interface?

schauerlich

August 19th, 2008, 08:44 PM

& I still think Finder is prehistoric.

Why have Apple not advanced this clumsy interface?

What are most people's gripes with the Finder? I know there's a whole FTFF movement, but I've never really had a problem with it. I don't see it as better or worse than Windows Explorer, Nautilus or Thunar.

handy

August 20th, 2008, 08:51 AM

What are most people's gripes with the Finder? I know there's a whole FTFF movement, but I've never really had a problem with it. I don't see it as better or worse than Windows Explorer, Nautilus or Thunar.

It is impossible for me to tell you what most people's gripes are with Finder & the Mac OSX desktop is in general, here are some thoughts from others:

1. I can't drag stuff from the spotlight menu to dock, I have to open a finder window or the spotlight window to do this.

2. Finder doesn't want to accept that it should open new windows in column view, even though I told it to do so.

3. Drag and dropping of images and text are inconsistent, Safari creates a shadow copy which looks like the text or image I'm dragging. Firefox gives me a nice border outline.

4. Interfaces aren't even the same within the same application. Finder uses brushed metal in full view, and unified in reduced view.

5. Install experience is inconsistent. Sometimes, there is a separate setup, for more advanced applications. Some install themselves when you manually drag them to the application folder. Some provides a shortcut to the application folder within their installation window, so you don't have to drag it as far. Some applications don't need to be installed.

6. The International menu in System Preferences is not intuitive, and has severe limitations for its options.

7. Sometimes Exposé locks up, so one can only move between two windows, and can't reach the others when using the arrow keys. This is mostly a problem when having just a few windows open.

handy

August 21st, 2008, 11:10 AM

What are most people's gripes with the Finder? I know there's a whole FTFF movement, but I've never really had a problem with it. I don't see it as better or worse than Windows Explorer, Nautilus or Thunar.

Finder is clumsier than Windows Explorer, due to the distance you have to travel to reach the menu.

Nautilus, Thunar & other directory utilities (such as emelFM2) that install & function in the Linux kernel based disto's are genuinely configurable as opposed to the offerings from either Windows or Apple.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no configuration options that allow me to make Finder efficient/effective for my uses, so in my view it remains clumsy, therefore I use Arch/Openbox/emelFM2 on my iMac. I don't use Windows on any of my machines at all.

schauerlich

August 21st, 2008, 08:43 PM

Finder is clumsier than Windows Explorer, due to the distance you have to travel to reach the menu.

Nautilus, Thunar & other directory utilities (such as emelFM2) that install & function in the Linux kernel based disto's are genuinely configurable as opposed to the offerings from either Windows or Apple.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no configuration options that allow me to make Finder efficient/effective for my uses, so in my view it remains clumsy, therefore I use Arch/Openbox/emelFM2 on my iMac. I don't use Windows on any of my machines at all.

If Nautilus had column view I'd be golden.

MikeTheC

September 19th, 2008, 02:13 AM

I think the argument over "which is the best GUI" is a bit like "What's better, Macs or PCs?" I doubt it's something any of us are ever going to solve or convince each other about.

I'm a Mac user. I think it does a far superior job rendering fonts. To the extent that Aqua implements any of Classic's leading/kerning/etc., plus to whatever extent they improved upon it, no other OS really does as well. I also like the sensibility which Apple and the Mac community seem to espouse when it comes to program and file icons, and in general feel they look more "professional" than their Windows counterparts (there are some exceptions) and less, oh, "cartoon-y" for lack of a better word, than their Linux counterparts.

Moreover, the extent to which Gnome, KDE, heck, even XFCE, are all obviously influenced by Apple's (and, let's face it, Xerox's) design aesthetics and so forth, is pretty evident. Then again, that's also evident in Windows to an extent.

True, everything I've written up to this point in this post could make one think I don't like Gnome, et al. And actually, nothing could be further from the truth. I really like how the Linux GUI has developed over the years. I can remember being over at a friend's house when he was running Red Hat 4.2 (this is, obviously, quite a number of years ago), and seeing the advances since then have been nothing short of amazing to me. Things such as multiple desktops, a main OS menu which contains program launchers categorized by class of software, fully modifiable menu and task bars, and so forth and so on... all of this is quite useful to me.

In my personal opinion, I think the F/OSS community is to be commended on their efforts. And no matter what else anyone says, they all stand on the shoulders of giants, just as doctors and scientists and statesmen have done for centuries.

handy

September 20th, 2008, 01:00 AM

mips

September 20th, 2008, 08:02 AM

Sabayon has the best quality fonts I have ever seen on any computer. Arch also displays better than Leopard on my iMac.

I believe that mips, also stated his disappointment with regard to the quality of the font display on the Mac he has been using for the past 5 months or so.

I have to agree with the fonts on Sabayon, they are simply the best I have seen on any OS or distro. I'm actually contemplating downloading the latest Sabayon just to have a look at their fonts and try replicating the config on Arch (which is pretty good font wise).

The fonts in OS X are really bad as far as I'm concerned. One would have though Apple would have had it close to perfection the way they are about the visual aspect of things. Sadly changing fonts in OS X is one major pita I don't even want to consider.

MikeTheC

September 20th, 2008, 10:44 AM

mips

September 20th, 2008, 12:23 PM

Just went over to Sabayon's site and had a look at the screen shots.

What's so different in it's font rendering and that generally used elsewhere? The fonts as rendered on my Ubuntu box look identical to the ones in the various screenshots offered.

I dunno, it only becomes apparent once you use it. I have not used it in a long time though. Off to go download miniISO....

StitchJAcket

September 27th, 2008, 06:02 PM

Oh for sure. If thats what you like cheers for you. One of the first thing I found in this forum is that every one has different preferences and that you have to respect that. But saying that OSX desktop is the yardstick where we measure looks and functionality is IMO wrong.

I agree it's like measuring in inches and then someone measuring in metrics it's just a break down of the type of environment the user expects and likes. Some people like the flashy, some people like ubuntu, and *sigh* in some cases it's windows.