Mac OS X is quite ugly...

[joflow]

Today, I was in CompUSA browsing the mac section. While playing around with the OS, I noticed that my XGL setup is way prettier. In fact, I think its quite ugly. I've used OS X before and it never occured to me until now.

What I found particularly ugly about it was the icons (the folder icon to be really specific). It does have the edge with program icons but overall tango is way better. This came at a total shock to me because only a few months ago, I was complaining about how ugly most linux icons are. I guess I hadn't realized how much tango improved things on that front.

[aysiu]

You know what they say--ugliness is in the eye of the beholder.

[renis]

people who choose there computer based on "prettyness" should go jump of a building. i base my decisions on functionality and what i want out of it.

ubuntu doesnt have many games, so i use windows for that

windows is a ****** OS so i use ubuntu for everything else

my XP desktop looks like windows 95 and ubuntu is really that pretty either

[aysiu]

people who choose there computer based on "prettyness" should go jump of a building. i base my decisions on functionality and what i want out of it. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Depending on your needs, OS X, XP, and Dapper could all be equally functional. If that's the case, I don't see how it's bad to base your decision on prettiness.

[joflow]

people who choose there computer based on "prettyness" should go jump of a building. i base my decisions on functionality and what i want out of it.

ubuntu doesnt have many games, so i use windows for that

windows is a ****** OS so i use ubuntu for everything else

my XP desktop looks like windows 95 and ubuntu is really that pretty either

No I don't want to jump off a building.

Different strokes for different folks. I can't use a OS that has an ugly interface which is why I never could stomach KDE and for a while gnome was barely tolerable. I'm looking for eye candy and usability. For most everyday task, all the modern OSes are pretty much equal. Browsing the web with firefox in linux is no better then browsing the web with firefox in windows. Watching videos with VLC in linux is no different (except for the fact that I can't get surround sound working ](*,) ) then in windows. So I'm going for the OS that gives the best user experience. And for me, right now, the best user experience is with the spinning cubes and wobbling windows.

If I need to do something outside of basic computing then I'll pick the OS thats best suited for the task.

[aysiu]

A couple more things:

1. If you spend a lot of time with your spouse, you won't mind if he or she is good-looking. If you spend a lot of time with your computer, you won't mind if its interface is good-looking.

2. Most Mac users I know have no compelling functional reason for picking Mac over Windows--they usually pick Mac because it ... looks better. If you want to tell them they should jump off a building, be my guest. I don't think they'll listen to you.

[renis]

A couple more things:

1. If you spend a lot of time with your spouse, you won't mind if he or she is good-looking. If you spend a lot of time with your computer, you won't mind if its interface is good-looking.

2. Most Mac users I know have no compelling functional reason for picking Mac over Windows--they usually pick Mac because it ... looks better. If you want to tell them they should jump off a building, be my guest. I don't think they'll listen to you.

i dont **** my computer

[aysiu]

i dont **** my computer
What does that mean? I don't even know what swear word got censored...

[renis]

f u ck

[joflow]

What does that mean? I don't even know what swear word got censored...

its the f word. He's saying he doesn't have sex with his computer, I think.

[aysiu]

its the f word. He's saying he doesn't have sex with his computer, I think.
I guess that could be relevant in some fashion.

[Jucato]

I don't see the big fuss about functionality vs. appearance. IMHO, appearance is a subset of functionality, that is, appearance affects functionality.

Imagine a perfectly "functional" OS that does everything perfectly.
But the icons look all the same, except for a 2x2 corner which shows the MIME type or application logo. The color scheme is in glaring neon red. The window borders are thicker than an ice cube. Let me see you try to use it.

Icons, colors, borders, these are all aspects of "appearance", and affects how you use the system. You might say that this "appearance" makes the OS non-functional, which only proves the point. And I haven't even mentioned include toolbars, dialog boxes, and widget styles. That's why we have HIG studies. That's why we have usability groups/studies. Appearance isn't everything. But to say that appearance is nothing is also quite a leap.

@renis: and your reply can be (wrongly) interpreted as you only get a spouse for the sake of ****ing. If that was not what you meant, I would suggest wording your replies more carefully.

[weasel fierce]

I think OS X looks rather nice, but eh.

[xXx 0wn3d xXx]

I think OS X looks rather nice, but eh.
I agree too, my desktop even looks like OSX but that's just my opinion.

[Iandefor]

people who choose there computer based on "prettyness" should go jump of a building. i base my decisions on functionality and what i want out of it. Why should someone with a highly developed sense of aesthetics jump off of a building? I definitely choose my operating systems based (partially, at least) on how they look. I personally prefer an attractive desktop. Just how I am. Why is that so offensive to you that you would wish me to die (or, at least, sustain some kind of broken bone)?

[renis]

i just had sex in the shower.
i dont think my computer would like that.

[gamma]

All operating systems have their flaws. OSX does have ugly folder icons and a few other ugly icons. But overall they do have a very clean interface and some nice looking icons. I use Linux because I like to have a desktop that won't become crippled when installing a piece of software. Wohoo spyware/adware..

[renis]

@renis: and your reply can be (wrongly) interpreted as you only get a spouse for the sake of ****ing. If that was not what you meant, I would suggest wording your replies more carefully.

nope
it was pretty much what i meant

[kpolice]

Well you can always change the icons :P , you can find a lot of top quality icons for OSX and i can't say the same about GNOME or Linux :(

[newman]

I love OS X – the Aqua interface is very pleasing to the eye and extremely functional to boot. I've been using computers since the days of DOS, and I've always favored the mac OS for its features, functionality, and user friendliness. Even as I'm sitting here I'm using a "mac theme" on my ubuntu box, but it's just not the same experience – ubuntu is probably the best Linux distro I've used thus far (and I've tried way too many to list) however, I think OS X is superior in that everything just works as a unit. Surely you can imitate many of OS X's native features in Linux, but it is just that, an imitation at best, and as such it shows.

just my 2 cents...

[renis]

i just remembered
you can have sex with your computer
PORN!

[Jucato]

I also just remembered:


Adult Content/Violence/Illegal Activity: Messages containing sexually oriented/violent/illegal dialog, images, content, or links to such will be deleted. Messages with links to or suggesting illegal activity will also be deleted. These actions could result in a ban.

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy

[G Morgan]

I wouldn't say that OSX is ugly, more that is of the blond bimbo pretty that you'd prefer not to spend more than a few days with if possible. I'm finding more and more that relaxed themes like Ubuntu are superior to the in your face flashiness of OSX.

[Sushi]

Why should someone with a highly developed sense of aesthetics jump off of a building?

You are talking about two different things here. The original comment was that "Anyone who chooses his computer based on prettiness should jump off of a building". You then twist that to something else entirely. In short: you are more or less turning the original comment in to a strawman-argument.

You can have "highly developed sense of aesthetics", and still choose your computer based on it's features, price and usability, instead of mere looks. Computers are not bought for the sake of interior-decorations. OS'es are not chosen because of their "artistic merits". They are chosen because of what you can do with them.


I definitely choose my operating systems based (partially, at least) on how they look. I personally prefer an attractive desktop. Just how I am. Why is that so offensive to you that you would wish me to die (or, at least, sustain some kind of broken bone)?

So you think that you have "highly developed sense of aesthetics" ;)?

Of course we all try to make our desktops and the like to look as pleasant as possible. But we don't choose our OS'es based on how they look. Or at least we shouldn't. Should we all just use SUSE, becaise it has a nifty splash-screen and themed GRUB, whereas Ubuntu does not? Should I switch to OS X because it has those nifty zooming icons in the docks, and live thumbnails? No? Then you are basically agreeing with the original poster.

[Lord Illidan]

I agree with the OP only up to the folder icon. Those horizontal lines on the icon are pretty ugly. It can even be noticed in metacity themes aping OSX. Otherwise, everything looks nice, with the exception of some ambigous icons.

Beauty does play a part in which OS I chose. But in these days of themes, one can emulate his favourite OS in whichever OS one wants. It is easier in Linux, because you can do whatever you want in it. So I chose Linux. BTW, I have a default KDE setup. Looks great, I dunno what people hate about it.

Gnome also looks good, particularly with the Dapper Tangerine theme, so no problems there.

[Stormy Eyes]

What I found particularly ugly about it was the icons (the folder icon to be really specific).

Yes, the system icons (especially the generic folder icon) are quite ugly. Fortunately, there's a shareware tool (you pay twenty bucks for the full version, but the free version is good enough for me) called CandyBar that lets you change your icons. I use it, though I wouldn't mind having Dapper's icons on my Mac.

[zAo]

Compiz/XGL may look better, but hey: OSX got some applications linux users can only dream of.
Never mind the Windows XP Theme](*,)

[Sushi]

Yes, the system icons (especially the generic folder icon) are quite ugly. Fortunately, there's a shareware tool (you pay twenty bucks for the full version, but the free version is good enough for me) called CandyBar that lets you change your icons. I use it, though I wouldn't mind having Dapper's icons on my Mac.

It's been a while since I used a Mac, but... You need a third-part tool (and potentially pay money) in order to change your icons?

And related to this: I have mentioned this elsewhere, but it seems to me that all those nifty little tools that are available for free in Linux, cost money in OS X. Or you don't need them at all in Linux (a separate tool to change icons???? Is this the bizarro-world?).

[Lord Illidan]

Compiz/XGL may look better, but hey: OSX got some applications linux users can only dream of.
Never mind the Windows XP Theme](*,)

Which applications are you speaking of?

Windows XP default theme sucks, imho.

[Lord Illidan]

It's been a while since I used a Mac, but... You need a third-part tool (and potentially pay money) in order to change your icons?

And related to this: I have mentioned this elsewhere, but it seems to me that all those nifty little tools that are available for free in Linux, cost money in OS X. Or you don't need them at all in Linux (a separate tool to change icons???? Is this the bizarro-world?).

That's because Apple and Microsoft have one thing above all in common. PROFIT. If they can sell this silly little app, and believe me, people will buy it, then they do it. Take a look at WindowBlinds for example. Or those other shareware out there for Windows, which basically can be done with Linux for free.

[tseliot]

It's been a while since I used a Mac, but... You need a third-part tool (and potentially pay money) in order to change your icons?
I find it absurd (and sad).

I don't remember if you can change the icon theme in Windows though.

[Lord Illidan]

I find it absurd (and sad).

I don't remember if you can change the icon theme in Windows though.

There is software out there, but it is shareware... i.e. either get a ton of advertising messages thrown at you every bootup, get a load of spyware, and put up with it for 30 days or less, or fork up the dosh.

[Sushi]

That's because Apple and Microsoft have one thing above all in common. PROFIT.

We are talking about THIRD-PARTY utilities here. Like the utility to change icons in OS X: it's not made by Apple, it's made by someone else.


If they can sell this silly little app

Apple is not selling this "silly little app".


Take a look at WindowBlinds for example.

WindowBlinds is not made by Microsoft, so what does Microsoft's pursuit for profit have to do with WindowBlinds?

[Lord Illidan]

We are talking about THIRD-PARTY utilities here. Like the utility to change icons in OS X: it's not made by Apple, it's made by someone else.

Apple is not selling this "silly little app".

WindowBlinds is not made by Microsoft, so what does Microsoft's pursuit for profit have to do with WindowBlinds?

Their pursuit of profit made them release the whole thing as closed source, so in order to do changes to basic things, devs must ask MS/Apple and pay them for the code, which prevents them releasing it as freeware, as the costs would be too high.

That's how I see it.

[Sushi]

Their pursuit of profit made them release the whole thing as closed source, so in order to do changes to basic things, devs must ask MS/Apple and pay them for the code, which prevents them releasing it as freeware, as the costs would be too high.

That's how I see it.

Well, closing the OS doesn't have much to do with changing icons and the such. Even GNOME is doing something similar when compared to KDE for example: they are preventing the user from doing some things that they can do in KDE. Being open source does not mean that you can do anything and everything with the software.

I just checked: you can change icons in Windows. I'm not sure that how easy it is to change all the icons, but the option of chaning icons is there. And I tried searching for "windows theme" on Google, and I got lots of hits for alternative themse for windows. And they seem to be free (as in beer).

There IS free software (in every sense of the word) available for both Windows and OS X, so the fact that the OS is closed is NOT preventing the release of such software. It's just that Mac-developers and Linux-developers have different philosophies. Mac-developers want to earn money, Linux-developers want to contribute.

[zAo]

Which applications are you speaking of?
Windows XP default theme sucks, imho.
iPhoto, Aperture, Photoshop, Lightroom, Final Cut Pro...

No, F-spot&&Gimp aren't enough for a pro photographer.

[Lord Illidan]

iPhoto, Aperture, Photoshop, Lightroom, Final Cut Pro...

No, F-spot&&Gimp aren't enough for a pro photographer.

Not everyone needs them though. But I agree that we need more professional apps, as we need games. Gimp is good for me, but Photoshop is better. Still, as I am not a digital artist, GIMP is perfectly adequate for me.

And yes, Sushi, I think I worded it wrong. My apologies.

[Fallom]

Edit: Nevermind

[Lord Illidan]

That's one of the odd things about OSX. Just about all the software for it is shareware, no matter how simple its function. The freeware community isn't nearly as large as it is for Windows and Linux users and it's pretty inconvenient.

Actually I was talking about Windows here, but I think you have a point. The reason is, I believe, that free software programmers first develop for Linux, because it is well, free. Then they port it to Windows, because it is the best known OS. Then they don't port to Mac, because there are too little users out there.

Then you get the exceptions. Battle for Wesnoth, Open Office both work on Mac.

[maximo1010]

No I don't want to jump off a building.

Watching videos with VLC in linux is no different (except for the fact that I can't get surround sound working) then in windows.

Very sad : (

[FoxEWolf]

uh.... an OS should not be judged on "pretty". That is what caused all the people to fall into the Vista trap. The OS was nice looking but was it good to use? no it was NOT!!! people used to tell me that linux was not pretty but does it work well under use? Yes it does. People judge computing on GUI and Effects but i think that should never be a category to judge on.

[s.fox]

Thread Necromancy.

Thread Closed.