Hacker News Reader

Comment by pooriaazimi | Hacker News Reader

1. Terminal.app is a very good app. I switched to iTerm 2 a while back, but only because of a few minor features that I could've lived without. What are your problems?

2 & 4. You don't run a Hackintosh and expect it to work. If you want OS X, you buy a Mac. And all Macs (except the Mini) come with standard Apple keyboard.

3. I'm not sure what you're talking about. There's no "magic" algorithm that all apps use. Each app can use its own "algorithm" and can account for screen width as well. Just because Finder.app (most of the time) just grows the height doesn't mean all apps should do it, or are doing it.

View on HN

Terminal app is a sufficient terminal emulator. But it lacks most of decent options. Can you split windows? Use tabs? Can you change color profiles? May be so many simple decent ap choices are lacking from it. Also I'm not even talking about the lack of simple Terminal emulation modes. I told you I'm a system administrator and I live in terminals. So Terminal.app is not cutting for me.

What's wrong with a Hackintosh other then legal and ethics issues if it's running well? I used Apple hardware and my criticisms were the same.

and for the 3, If every app is using it's own algorithm than I'm really on the wrong side of the issue. And my criticism lacks proper bases. I have to take it back. But again, why not a maximise button?

Can you split windows? Use tabs? Can you change color profiles?

Yes to all though you can only split windows horizontally. Terminal is a really good app. iTerm2 is great too but a little slower than Terminal in my experience.

I have to switch my os to check these. If you are right It's better than what I think about it.

"Can you split windows?" - CMD+D splits vertically "Use tabs?" - yes, CMD+T "Can you change color profiles?" - yes "why not a maximise button?" - there is a separate fullscreen button now if you want maximize

> "Can you split windows?" - CMD+D splits vertically

Nitpick: it's different. Cmd+D splits the current buffer in two allowing to view two parts of the same output without scrolling, whereas in iTerm2 it splits into two distinct buffers, each with its own shell.

I arguably prefer the Terminal.app feature, when I have the other one with window management like with Window Magnet, which happens to handle any window, not just what's inside the terminal (in which case I'd simply use vim or tmux splits)

Terminal has tabs (had it since early 00's).

The lack of split panes was what made me switch to iTerm. I don't use it that often, but it's a "nice to have" feature. Terminal.app has split panes, but it's not "two sessions, side-by-side", rather "different windows into the same session", which I personally don't like much.

And you're right. You can't change the color profile like http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=86353 , which might be a bummer for some one like you (you can change the 16 ANSI colors to look less horrible though!).

Why no maximize button? I don't know the reasoning behind that, but I don't miss it. Full screen apps are amazing (for one monitor scenarios), and OS X has a nice handy feature called "Hide Others" (Command-Option-H) that gives you a distraction-free experience without making the app ridiculously large (and showing you a million white pixels!)

[1] touches upon this issue and has good arguments for it.

But of course, power users need more "power", so I also use the wonderful Moom[2] which combined with "Zoom" and "Full Screen" fulfills 100% of my windowing needs.

[1]: http://www.macyourself.com/2011/02/06/why-doesnt-mac-os-xs-g...

[2]: http://manytricks.com/moom/

> And you're right. You can't change the color profile like http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=86353

I may be missing something but I don't see how it's different from what has been available since Lion (and since Tiger with a SIMBL plugin). I've been using Zenburn and Solarized since what seems like forever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com