Linked by David Adams on Sat 31st Jul 2010 06:05 UTC, submitted by fran
Thread beginning with comment 435119
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-02
Probably some truth on the latter statement, although the first one sounds like hyperbole to me. The UI and ease of use of OS X 10.0 was perfectly sound, if cosmetically questionable. " [/q]
I'm going to back you up here as a long-time Linux user and an old macintosh hand (beginning circa 1989). OS X was always better than Linux distros in a simplistic point-and-clicky way. This says nothing about the sophistication (or lack thereof) of their system, or its stability (I wont even mention the horrific speed!) but purely speaks to the virtue of having the look and feel of all applications and UI elements under the control of one person with one vision. This is something Linux-land lacks and will probably always lack, so even when you get quite close to usable (e.g. good enough for pretty much everyone, certainly on par with Windows) you won't get to the level OS X had at the start.
In fact OS X's early releases were better than some of the more recent ones due precisely to the simplicity (read: lack of third party software) and the fact that they had not yet begun monkeying with different themes.