> Worse, there are no operating systems other than OS X that fulfill my needs of a pleasant-to-use Unix/Linux system--certainly no Linux distribution comes close on the "pleasant-to-use" part; I'd rather use Windows 7 and Cygwin than any Linux desktop I've been subjected to in the last five years.
Sounds to me like this is just a matter of what you're used to. From my experience, OS X's UI is the last thing anyone would want if they weren't used to it. The window management is pretty damn horrible. OTOH, Linux has a variety of window managers with many innovative paradigms.
> I like Lenovo's build quality and aesthetic, for example, but their laptops are universally underspecced for what I want (if your only GPU is Intel, you are not getting my money) and I can't get a Retina display, which I now consider mandatory, anywhere else.
I don't know what you're doing with your machine that makes Lenovo machines underspecced, but for web and Android development, the ThinkPad X1 Carbon fits the bill. I wrote about it here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4848375
If you want discrete graphics, that is available in other models, such as the T series, IIRC. However, for anything other than gaming or video editing, integrated graphics really is enough. I personally prefer not having discrete graphics, as it keeps me from playing games.
The only thing missing is retina support, but you have the advantage of a lighter and thinner laptop than the MBP. It's no different from the MBA in that respect, with the added advantage of a 14" screen in the same body size as the 13" Air.
Sounds to me like this is just a matter of what you're used to. From my experience, OS X's UI is the last thing anyone would want if they weren't used to it. The window management is pretty damn horrible. OTOH, Linux has a variety of window managers with many innovative paradigms.
Your experience does not match mine but thank you for trivializing mine by assuming that it's just what I'm used to. Never mind that I come from a Windows and Linux background, to OS X about three years ago, right?
I find the OS X window model appealing (though not without its warts) and its gesture support fantastic. Mission Control maps far better to the way that I think about multiple desktops than GNOME's or KDE's--and I compare to those and not your "innovative window managers" because I've been there, I've done that, and I have determined that they're not for me. I have been down the tiling window manager road and I find it demanding of micromanagement; it does not map to how I think or work and I have no interest in contorting to fit it. Likewise, I have no interest in putting up with sharp bits and pointy edges in Unity or GNOME 3 or KDE 4 (I've been there, too, and reject the T-shirt).
If you want discrete graphics, that is available in other models, such as the T series, IIRC. However, for anything other than gaming or video editing, integrated graphics really is enough.
The rMBP is not my only computer, but, yes, I want to be able to play games on it when I'm traveling. The rMBP is really good at it (I generally just play through Parallels, I don't bother to reboot). The T-series Lenovos are massive, heavy, lack Retina displays, and aren't nearly as aesthetically pleasing as the Carbon X1 is. Would never buy.
The only thing missing is retina support, but you have the advantage of a lighter and thinner laptop than the MBP.
"Except for the most important thing, you get some of the things." Sure, I'm being flip there, but it's not unserious: for my money, retina support is just not optional anymore. People say they can't go back after using a retina display because it's true. For me, the difference is that stark. The 3x 21" 1080p panels on my desktop feel distractingly blurry and they make me irritable to work on for long periods of time. (Most disappointing thing to me is that the DisplayPort outputs on the rMBP can't output 4K, but 2560x1600 displays look okay when put far enough back on my desk.)
> Never mind that I come from a Windows and Linux background, to OS X about three years ago, right?
I think that a lot of people are willing to put up with the transition to OS X because of the RDF and the iPod/iPhone halo effect, but the transition away has no such phenomenon to motivate people to use a platform long enough to get used to the differences. However, this is just a general observation.
> I have no interest in putting up with sharp bits and pointy edges in Unity or GNOME 3 or KDE 4
Meh, I find that the "sharp bits" are no more sharp than those in OS X. No platform can be perfect for any given user, since we all have different preferences. The closest you can get is with a highly-customizable tiling window manager, but anything like OS X, Windows or KDE wouldn't work like this.
> The T-series Lenovos are massive, heavy, lack Retina displays, and aren't nearly as aesthetically pleasing as the Carbon X1 is. Would never buy.
You clearly are not up-to-date on this. Have you seen the T430u? It weighs less than the rMBP 15", has discrete graphics, and has similar aesthetic stylings to the X1 Carbon. The optical drive has been omitted, for example.
> for my money, retina support is just not optional anymore
FWIW, I've found it to be half-baked when a lot of software and most websites don't support it yet. Browsing the web on a retina display is rather jarring. Moreover, when I regularly use external displays at my desk, switching back and forth would be quite jarring as well.
> Browsing the web on a retina display is rather jarring.
I would like to preface this by saying that I couldn't give a rat's ass about the rest of the arguments but in this case I just have to chime in since the quoted bit is just bullshit. The only difference between browsing the web on a retina display and browsing it on a normal screen is that, on a retina display, the font rendering is a million times better. That's it. But that is enough to make me not want to look at any other type of display again.
It is true that some applications do not have retina support (I'm looking at you, Firefox) but that support will come with time and all of the applications that I use on a daily basis look great.
Firefox 18 beta supports retina finally. Think its January release date or so.
Also 1000% this, high dpi, retina, whatever you want to call it rendering is so much better than non I've asked my bosses if I can buy a macbook pro to use for work. I work with text all day, this screen is so markedly better for text its not funny. Jarring? Not in the least, Jarring is using other displays after this.
Call me a fanboy if you want, but when my eyes don't fatigue from extended reading sessions, I think I'll take the fanboy label.
> I would like to preface this by saying that I couldn't give a rat's ass about the rest of the arguments but in this case I just have to chime in since the quoted bit is just bullshit. The only difference between browsing the web on a retina display and browsing it on a normal screen is that, on a retina display, the font rendering is a million times better.
Actually, this is what's bullshit. Having used a retina MBP, viewing websites without retina images looks very jarring, especially when the browser itself has retina assets.
What about people who transitioned to OS X before any iOS devices? Are they sadists? That's empty rhetoric. You're just projecting your ideas. OSX is way more pleasant to use than any linux distro. The design-by-committee that happens on most distros doesn't give the best results.
There are plenty of TWMs for OSX if you want it: divvy, sizeup, tyler wm, etc.
> Browsing the web on a retina display is rather jarring
It's exactly the same as browsing on a non-retina display. As in physically exactly.
> What about people who transitioned to OS X before any iOS devices? Are they sadists? That's empty rhetoric. You're just projecting your ideas.
Next time, take a second to restrain yourself from hastily typing out a polemic and hitting reply, so that you can reread the post you're replying to. I also mentioned the iPod, which has been around since 2001 and has also played a significant role in the increase in popularity of Macs.
> OSX is way more pleasant to use than any linux distro. The design-by-committee that happens on most distros doesn't give the best results.
From this, it sounds like you're the one projecting your ideas, actually.
> There are plenty of TWMs for OSX if you want it: divvy, sizeup, tyler wm, etc.
Most tiling window managers for OS X don't give you the level of control necessary to make them actually worth it. Sure, some keyboard shortcuts are nice, but that's not the real point.
> It's exactly the same as browsing on a non-retina display. As in physically exactly.
Uh, if it were "physically exactly" the same, then what would be the point of getting a retina display?
The ThinkPad X1 Carbon has a trackpad of quality equivalent to the MacBooks, just look at reviews online. Plus you get the TrackPoint, which is much more efficient once you get past the learning curve.
and then comes the amusing lack of proper configuration on the OS side. I am not an Apple person, but I have yet to see a trackpad- configuration that works even remotely as well as the MBP ones. The speed and acceleration multipliers in there have always been off.
EDIT: +1 on the NavPoint. I disable the trackpad on all my thinkpads and just use the NavPoint whenever I can.
I meant moving to OSX before owning any iOS device. Every developer I can remember right now that uses a Mac bought it because of the nice hardware and software, not because it's cool (they cost 3x+ as much as a PC over here, so it has to be worth it).
On retina: you were saying that a lot of software and websites don't support it; in that case, the image on the screen is exactly the same as a non-retina display, four pixels make one 'standard' pixel.
I had not, actually, and thank you for pointing me at it--I'd seen the T430, but not the u variant. That's much more like it. I dig that. If it could run OS X I'd be all over that. =)
> but it's not unserious: for my money, retina support is just not optional anymore.
It's interesting how one thing makes or breaks the deal. I'm the same :-), however my top feature is keyboard (I type a lot). That's why I'm always sticking with thinkpads. Sadly, I'm screwed for my next upgrade, because Lenovo have announced that they're ditching the traditional keyboard in favor of chiclet version. That goes for their complete thinkpad line.
> Sounds to me like this is just a matter of what you're used to. From my experience, OS X's UI is the last thing anyone would want if they weren't used to it. The window management is pretty damn horrible. OTOH, Linux has a variety of window managers with many innovative paradigms.
No, sounds like you are the one that's held back by what you're used to.
Just like the OP, I'd rather use OS X over Linux and Windows; it's a toss up for 2nd place between some of the great modern Linux distros and Windows 7.
I have used OS X extensively as well, so I have absolutely no idea on what basis you're making that statement. I've used OS X on a variety of devices, from laptops to high powered Mac Pros, and the window management has always felt sluggish to me in comparison to Windows and Linux. Having the menu for all the windows at the top of one monitor is quite simply infuriating, especially when using 2 or 3 monitors.
At least Apple finally fixed not being able to resize windows from any side last year. That still doesn't match Linux window managers though, which let you resize windows with Alt+right click and move them with Alt+left click from anywhere within a window. And nothing comes even close to the control possible with tiling window managers like Xmonad.
The cursor in OS X has also always felt very off - I think it's an issue with the mouse acceleration curve. I have repeatedly tried to fix this with 3rd party utilities, but nothing ever worked.
One of the somewhat frustrating assumptions running through your posts is that everyone materially gives a damn about the "control" of your window managers--as if the window manager is of more bracing importance than the applications running within. For you it may be, but to post as if this is a universal case is a little much.
Personally, I've sampled Xmonad. I don't like it. I found it actively tiring and demanding of micromanagement to work with it. This is in contrast to how, on OS X, I literally don't think about windows at all. I do everything with cmd-tab and swipe gestures on the touchpad. I also don't find resizing windows to be overly difficult and I only rarely resize anything at all. (On Windows, I just use Aero Snap across four monitors, which works pretty nicely for what it is.)
But the applications within, and the general lack of user focus and attention to detail, are really the core of what keep me off of the Linux and BSD desktop.
> One of the somewhat frustrating assumptions running through your posts is that everyone materially gives a damn about the "control" of your window managers--as if the window manager is of more bracing importance than the applications running within. For you it may be, but to post as if this is a universal case is a little much.
Well, we're specifically discussing window management, not the software running within. A comparison of Linux and OS X software is a completely different conversation.
> I found it actively tiring and demanding of micromanagement to work with it.
This is a common complaint, and all I can say to you, in the spirit of Steve Jobs, is that you're "doing it wrong". If you're actively managing windows with a tiling window manager, then that defeats the whole point of using the software. The idea is to have predetermined rules for how your windows will be arranged, and then not rearrange them at all (or rarely).
The whole reason for Xmonad having its config file in Haskell, an actual programming language, and not just a flat file with some settings, is so that you are not limited in the logic by which your windows are managed. Granted, this does require you to learn Haskell, which is probably Xmonad's biggest practical weakness. A similar window manager written in a more popular and approachable language, such as Python, would probably have a lot more users while only sacrificing a few things.
> the general lack of user focus
That's quite ironic, given that this entire thread is the result of Apple ignoring user interests.
> Well, we're specifically discussing window management, not the software running within.
We are? I wasn't intending to. Throughout this thread I've attempted to be clear that I was talking about the desktop environment, rather than the window manager; I apologize if I slipped somewhere. Window managers aren't even really on my radar unless it sucks. Like, GNOME's WM--sure, whatever, it's there. I don't even really think about it. It's what I'm trying to do with it that drives me batshit. I don't even think about OS X's window manager except on the (fairly rare) occasion that I swipe up for Mission Control and throw a couple windows into another desktop. It's just not a thing to me.
The applications inside, on the other hand...welp.
> The idea is to have predetermined rules for how your windows will be arranged, and then not rearrange them at all (or rarely).
That's not how my brain works. I didn't say Xmonad was wrong, I said it doesn't map to how I think and work.
> That's quite ironic, given that this entire thread is the result of Apple ignoring user interests.
As far as I can tell, tiling window managers are the ultimate antithesis of micromanagement. What could you possibly be spending your time doing with it? It's like saying an automatic transmission makes you micromanage.
"This looks horrible. I'm going to move it to better show what I want to see and how I want it to look."
I will sacrifice some sheer productive efficiency to have an environment that looks and feels right. Tiling window managers don't get me there, which is why I found myself endlessly screwing with what it was doing with my desktop until I came to the conclusion that I could just not use it and be happier about it (which I did).
I guess you used a wildly different from what I use. "Moving things around to better show things" is exactly what you don't have to do with a tiling window manager.
> From my experience, OS X's UI is the last thing anyone would want if they weren't used to it.
I switched away from Linux/Windows XP dual booting to a Macbook with OSX after 5+ years. I much prefer OSX to either alternative. I still love Linux for server or embedded applications but the Linux desktop experience continues to frustrate me. Unity has only made it worse.
> OS X's UI is the last thing anyone would want if they
> weren't used to it
I was very used to MS world, living in it (DOS and Windows, from 3.11 to XP) 1990-2006. I got my first iBook G4 in 2006 and never looked back to Win. In 2006-2007 I was using OS X, Win and Linux in parallel. I know pretty well why did I stick with OS X and it has nothing to do with being used to it.
Sounds to me like this is just a matter of what you're used to. From my experience, OS X's UI is the last thing anyone would want if they weren't used to it. The window management is pretty damn horrible. OTOH, Linux has a variety of window managers with many innovative paradigms.
> I like Lenovo's build quality and aesthetic, for example, but their laptops are universally underspecced for what I want (if your only GPU is Intel, you are not getting my money) and I can't get a Retina display, which I now consider mandatory, anywhere else.
I don't know what you're doing with your machine that makes Lenovo machines underspecced, but for web and Android development, the ThinkPad X1 Carbon fits the bill. I wrote about it here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4848375
If you want discrete graphics, that is available in other models, such as the T series, IIRC. However, for anything other than gaming or video editing, integrated graphics really is enough. I personally prefer not having discrete graphics, as it keeps me from playing games.
The only thing missing is retina support, but you have the advantage of a lighter and thinner laptop than the MBP. It's no different from the MBA in that respect, with the added advantage of a 14" screen in the same body size as the 13" Air.