On 1/30/02 11:08 PM, "Jim Beard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 30, 2002, at 07:52 PM, Harald Sundt wrote: > >> Mac OS X feels like a real slick (fancy featured) but clunky version >> of a Mac Window Manager on Red Hat. > > Really? Clunky? I can't imagine describing OS X that way at all. I've > used Enlightenment, and I've used a lot of other fluff systems, OS X > generally feels damn smooth to me. Early tonight I was just saying to > ben how I think Aqua feels like an light weight window manager. A lot > of aqua has been designed towards speed. I have to agree here. I think the OS X interface clearly blows away any X window manager in terms of elegance or usability. And when I occasionally have to go use my Windows machine (for audio stuff, still can't give up SoundForge) that usually stays off these days, it's a serious step back in terms of intuitiveness and usability. I used to think the Windows 2000 interface was great for getting work done, certainly better than any X window manager (except specific network admin-related tasks), but OS X really outshines it in my opinion. And to think, I was one of the people who hoped they kept the NeXT interface, and rolled their eyes when they introduced Aqua. Don't get me wrong, versions of OS X prior to 10.1 were utter pieces of crap, but OS X 10.1 really shines, is speedy, and quite intuitive. It's a dream come true: a great, full-featured user interface (to get lame job stuff done like Word documents and Excel spreadsheets [1]) sitting on top of a UNIX core. iTunes, iPhoto, and Final Cut Pro aren't bad, either ;-) [1] Disclaimer: In the real world, people don't care if you can't read Microsoft Office documents, they'll send them anyways. Jacob
