Anyone else given up on Linux for a Mac?

[phil_m]

Before anyone accuses me of trolling, let me say that I've been using Linux since Mandrake 7 and have used it almost exclusively for the past two years. In fact, I used to be around here when the website was a curious shade of orange although I posted under a different name.

However, recently I was in the market for a new laptop. I was about to get a Thinkpad and install Ubuntu on it when a colleague's Apple Powerbook caught my eye. After playing around with it for a couple of days I was hooked and immediately went out and bought one. I can now say, hand on heart, I will probably never return to using Linux as a desktop OS. Sure, I'm going to keep using Linux at work, but I reckon I'll never again want to use Linux or any of its window managers after seeing OS X 10.4.

IMHO, Tiger simply blows Linux out of the water in terms of an enjoyable and productive user experience. It pains me to say it since I've become so fond of Linux over the past several years, but Apple have gotten everything right with OS X. All of the little niggles that used to piss me off when using Linux have suddenly disappeared. Installation of applications is a breeze, the desktop environment and file manager is implemented more successfully than KDE/Gnome, and Spotlight is so useful it's frightening.

Has anyone else used Tiger and feels the same way?

[RD]

i have a power mac G5 with tiger and right now it a server apple got one thing right aqua on top of free bsd, while tiger is very nice looking i find it some what resricted, tools i became reliant on not there, i found the unix side of os x a warted down version.

some of the points you have made i agree but some i dont i cannot say i will turn to osx full time as i said its a server and if i feel up to it ill use it for graphics

[nelz]

i found the unix side of os x a warted down version.

Love it!

Linux - Unix with attitude!
MacOS - Unix with verucas!

[davecs]

Now, now, Neil! Before you mock other people's spelling errors, get your own house in order!

"verrucas" (dictionary.com even suggests verrucae!) But definitely 2 r's!

[Rhakios]

Mac OS X has many virtues, but it could do with a decent file manager, finder is hardly adequate and while I expect spotlight is great for finding things, it doesn't help with file management (I am using Panther so I don't get spotlight). I ended up installing konqueror through fink.

[sandyman]

Totally agree. I only ever dual booted before, but am now an OS X convert. (on the desktop anyway). Tiger rocks. *nix stability and security with a great GUI.

Rhakios. Don't agree with you about finder. The last file manger I tried on *nix was Nautilus which I really did not like at all. It was like going back to Win '95. Each to their own though

Still running, 1 x OS X, 1 x XP, 2 x Linux

[nelz]

I wasn't mocking, I make enough tyops myself I just thought it was very appropriate.

Now why didn't aspell pick up on the missing r?

[davecs]

I wasn't mocking, I make enough tyops myself I just thought it was very appropriate.

Yeah, it was a good 'un!

[jjmac]

Was it a typo ?

http://www.reference.com/search?db=web&q=verucas

http://leahwithanh.blogspot.com/2004/06 ... rucas.html
http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/archive/n181203_7.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/ ... m=storylhs

(grin),


phil_m
>>
Installation of applications is a breeze, the desktop environment and file manager is implemented more successfully than KDE/Gnome, and Spotlight is so useful it's frightening.
>>

You mean you see Linux in terms of your window manager, a lot do ...., makes sense in a way ... but the distro isn't exactly linux, it's just running on it. Just like, UNIX dosen't really exist, aside from a spec.

The post is directed incorrectly. If you find irritations with a distros implementation, thats an issue with the distro. Like ... there are other wms' around. Just cause there not provided by default ...... oh well, who cares anyway


jm

[nordle]

Totally agree. I only ever dual booted before, but am now an OS X convert. (on the desktop anyway). Tiger rocks. *nix stability and security with a great GUI.

Rhakios. Don't agree with you about finder. The last file manger I tried on *nix was Nautilus which I really did not like at all. It was like going back to Win '95. Each to their own though

Still running, 1 x OS X, 1 x XP, 2 x Linux

To be fair though, Rhakios installed konq not nautilus, nautilus is a very limited file manager.

I couldn't live without tabbed file browsing, ok a exaggerated, but it makes my life easier! It's so useful to be able to have 1 browser open, with an FTP tab, an SMB tab, several filesystem tabs open, my amarok playlists on the left, another tab with gwenview thumbnail image viewing.
Then if installing a new app, download it, move it, unpack it etc in konq, then open an embedded terminal in konq, install software, got a problem crt+T another tab and off to google.com
Nautilus pales in comparison, depending on your needs of course, but for me it takes so much longer to do stuff. Not to mention the shockingly slow redraw of directories containing boat loads of files, not good on a 64-3200!

[phil_m]

You mean you see Linux in terms of your window manager, a lot do ...., makes sense in a way ... but the distro isn't exactly linux, it's just running on it. Just like, UNIX dosen't really exist, aside from a spec.

No, I absolutely don't. In fact, I did mention that I've got several years experience of using Linux in a production environment and indeed use it at work each day. Therefore, the distinction you seem to want to make between "Linux" and "distribution" is meaningless; I use the phrase in exactly the same context as we all use it. If we really wanted to be pedantic then we would be comparing "Linux the kernel" with "Mach the kernel," but that's not the objective here.

The point is that since Linux distributions have (entirely understandable) aspirations to be considered as viable *desktop* platforms it's entirely appropriate to compare and contrast them with other desktops. This is the basis of the original comment: I have found that *none* of the distributions I have experience even begin to approach OS X 10.4 in terms of user experience. I think I know the reason why: integration. The one thing that still annoys me about Linux (the distribution) today is that one still gets the feeling that it's simply a collection of many distinct components. Your desktop of choice, whether it be Gnome, KDE, Xfce, or any other, just doesn't feel like a complete package since it's composed of so many disparate elements that often compete with each other for attention. This is probably a result of there being no clear human interface guidelines for any of the major window managers (and don't claim that these guidelines exist for Gnome or KDE: I've read their attempts at HIGs and they're rubbish).

The post is directed incorrectly. If you find irritations with a distros implementation, thats an issue with the distro. Like ... there are other wms' around. Just cause there not provided by default ...... oh well, who cares anyway jm

What?

[nelz]

Was it a typo ?

No. I spelt is that way because that's how I thought it should be spelt. so it was a spelling mistake, not a typo.

However, davecs was entirely correct, according to the OED there are two r's.

[andychannelle]

I have a Mac, I have a Linux PC and I have a Windows PC, and they all have their place. Granted WinXP is only for my daughter to play the BBC's Dinosaur World, but it has its place.

I've said this before, but when people say that OS X has a coherance that other OSes lack, they probably haven't tried printing through one of the many different systems Adobe seem to tack on to applications. The iLife suite is the pinnacle of integration, I think, but once you go beyond Apple's own apps, then inconsistancies begin to creep in.

And then there's the cost. How many times have Konqueror users been forced to pay for a simple browser update? If you want to upgrade Safari, you have to splash out £90 on a whole new OS upgrade - not even Microsoft would attempt to force WinXP users to update to Vista to get IE7.

I like my Mac, but to be completely honest, it seems too much of a walled garden, while Linux is more open country.

[sandyman]

I've said this before, but when people say that OS X has a coherance that other OSes lack, they probably haven't tried printing through one of the many different systems Adobe seem to tack on to applications. The iLife suite is the pinnacle of integration, I think, but once you go beyond Apple's own apps, then inconsistancies begin to creep in.

Not nearly on the scale of Gnome/KDE. Personally I find very few

And then there's the cost. How many times have Konqueror users been forced to pay for a simple browser update? If you want to upgrade Safari, you have to splash out £90 on a whole new OS upgrade - not even Microsoft would attempt to force WinXP users to update to Vista to get IE7.

Why bother with Safari? I just stick with Firefox like a large percentage of Mac users. All the other OS updates are free as I'm sure you are aware

I like my Mac, but to be completely honest, it seems too much of a walled garden, while Linux is more open country.

And the open countryisde can be very rough around the edges, pretty unsophisticated in many ways but quite robust. It is also not a very welcoming place to people who have not lived there all their lives or who like a greater degree of comfort

[andychannelle]

To be pedantic, Dashboard, Spotlight and "200 other improvements" are far from free - and using Firefox destroys the Apple HIG-compliance. I'm not averse to paying for software, but I get annoyed that there's no upgrade path for OS X and, in terms of daily use, there isn't enough in Tiger to justify the £90 Apple wants (let's just call it the Mac Tax to be fair).

That's my sophisticated argument. My childish argument is: Amarok is about three times better than iTunes and Linux users don't have to cough up an extra £90 for a run of the mill DVD burner - oh, sorry, Superdrive.

"It is also not a very welcoming place to people who have not lived there all their lives or who like a greater degree of comfort." This is the "American Werewolf in London" view of the English countryside and is not strictly true.