I actually don't even know how to use the mac for the most part, I've learned to live in the terminal. I contrast this with Linux where I can just... idk, browse files? Where windows don't suddenly "escape" into some other, hidden environment, where I can just use a computer in a very sane way, and if I want keyboard shortcuts they largely align with expectations.
I was extremely frustrated while on a call using a mac. I made the video call full screen, which then placed it onto essentially a "virtual monitor" (ie: completely hidden). I had no way to alt tab back to it, for whatever reason, and I had no way to actually recover the window in any of the usualy "window switching" means. I knew there was a totally undiscoverable gesture to see those things but I was docked so didn't have access to the trackpad.
I figured out if you go to the hidden dock at the bottom and select Chrome, as I recall, you can then get swapped back over to that virtual desktop, "un full screen" the window, and it returns to sanity.
Mac UX seems to go against literally every single guideline I can imagine. Invisible corners, heavily reliant on gestures, asymmetric user experiences (ie: I can press a button to trigger something, but there isn't a way to 'un trigger' it using the same sequence/ reverse sequence/ 'shift' sequence), ridiculous failure modes, etc.
I can't believe that people live like this. I think they don't know how bad they've got it, I routinely see mac users avoiding the use of 'full screen', something that I myself have had to learn to avoid on a mac, despite decades of having never given it a second thought.
I mean I'd be willing to say I don't get it, because I sure as fuck do not get it. But I think I'd absolutely reject the "forget all the other stuff, learn this". It's been literally years on a Mac. I remember the frustration of going from Windows to Linux, I look back at that adjustment and laugh, it's hilarious to me that that felt frustrating when I contrast to my Mac adjustment. At least the Linux adjustment was tractable, the Mac adjustment is a total joke.
I actually suspect that people don't "adjust" in the sense of learning how to do things with a mac but instead adjust to not doing things with a mac, like how many mac users I know of outright say they just don't use full screen mode because it's confusing.
I feel like it’s really intuitive when you switch desktops with the trackpad.
It’s just incredibly poorly implemented, like all the window management on macOS.
Disclaimer : I own MacBooks since 2010 and I have seen macOS rotting update after update. To me they achieved a really mature and pretty well thought OS with Snow Leopard and it’s been slowly rolling downhill since then.
I can totally say that KDE AND Gnome AND Cinnamon AND Sway AND even the immature Niri are all better experiences than macOS.
Or you could maybe learn how to use the OS, in linux lingo RTFM. I don't want to be rude, but the critique was very flippant, the arguments vague, all about expectations based on years using a different OS, doesn't seem you want to give it a fair chance.
> the arguments vague
I gave both generalized and highly specific cases where I felt the UX failed. I referenced principles of UX as well as literal "here is what my experience was in a concrete story".
> , all about expectations based on years using a different OS
No? I mean, again, funny. I explained how I've been using MacOS for years. Actually a decade, now that I count it out.
> doesn't seem you want to give it a fair chance.
a decade lol
> I gave both generalized and highly specific cases where I felt the UX failed.
No guidelines named, no principles defined. No comparison standard is established.
The earlier fullscreen story is a specific case, maybe a discoverability argument, but not not that UX violates every principle. MacOS spaces and fullscreen apps follow a workspace concept, it's not a window resize mode.
> Asymmetric user experiences
What’s asymmetric is not the command — it’s the spatial context. The claim that it’s violated is arguable.
> Heavily reliant on gestures
Not sure which guidelines this breaks, but every gesture has a keyboard shortcut alternative, there is mission control key, menu bar, dock.
> Ridiculous failure modes
No failure mode is defined.
It indicates no such thing, other than that my preferred UX on a mac has landed on the terminal. It doesn't indicate whatsoever that I never tried to learn, or that I haven't learned, unless you presuppose that learning would necessitate using the computer a specific way.
Indeed, I have learned quite a lot of the various gestures, spaces, etc, unsurprisingly. I avoid them because they suck, and the learning experience was shit.
> And the comment used sweeping generalizations, without referring to any specific principles broken which aren't just personal dislikes or unfamiliarity with a different way of doing things.
All design principles are going to boil down to personal dislikes lol but no, nothing was "unfamiliarity" you can stop saying that thanks.
> No guidelines named, no principles defined. No comparison standard is established.
I could cite guidelines if you think it would help. Microsoft released a UX guideline years ago justifying why magic corners etc are a bad idea. Of course, they obviously don't follow that guide these days. What would you like?
I'm not interested in debating this. I'm perfectly fine with how I've expressed myself, I'm just not motivated enough this late in a Friday to get more detailed, so you'll have to just try to decipher what I've said and find if there's value to you or reject it, which I think is your prerogative.
Maybe you're better suited for an iPad.
The fact that a full screen window creates a whole new virtual desktop is hilarious and I dare you to justify it.
Appeals to "Windows is bad" or whatever mean nothing to me. Stupid comments like "get good" mean nothing to me.
I can kind of see the idea here. The alternative is that all the other windows in the working desktop get hidden behind the fullscreen window. That's pretty bad UX. I personally avoid it on Linux by always moving a window to its own desktop before fullscreening it.
That said, the implementation is awful, and exposes the rotten foundations of Mac's window management paradigm.
IMO floating windows always fall apart and should be reserved for modals and transient dialog boxes only. Everything gets a lot easier to understand when applications can't occlude one another or occupy the same space.
How? It means I could have a full screen video and then overlay something smaller over it, or maintain my alt-tab behavior as it plays in the background, etc. I'd maintain the same UX. Why would full screen have such a weird behavior?
If you want the window taking up the entire screen while staying on the desktop, double click the window chrome and it'll expand to fill the screen. And if you want the dock not taking up space, there's a setting to auto hide the dock (which I always enable)
I do want that. Every other OS has no issue with what I'm describing. Who said I don't want distractions? I want the video content to be expanded as widely as possible, that is what "full screen" means. Who said "full screen" means a separate desktop?
Ridiculous tbh
> And if you want the dock not taking up space, there's a setting to auto hide the dock (which I always enable)
Yes, me too.
You can escape it by moving your cursor to the top edge of the screen and clicking the green button on the titlebar that appears to exit fullscreen.
I think that's really bad design. Is that even controversial?
You can also hit ctrl-left or ctrl-right to move spaces without one or ctrl-1, ctrl-2, ctrl-3, etc. to switch to a specific virtual desktop directly.
You can also hit ctrl+ scroll wheel if you have one. Or add mission control hot corner to one of the screen corners.
"holds a grudge" no? I just sit at a desk.
Not quite. It has the old behavior (grow to as large a window as supported) if the app does not support full-screen. For instance, the Settings app cannot grow wider, so it grows to full screen height.
The icon that appears when you hover over the green button reflects whether it is full screen or zoom behavior. If you hold option, you will always get zoom behavior IIRC. However, due to the green button being overridden to be a menu in Tahoe, the button icon may or may not reflect zoom/full screen behavior if you press/release option and may instead show the optional modifier on the options in the pop-up menu.
I do not believe there is a way to disable full screen behavior completely, nor spaces. However, I don't think I'd be able to survive working on a Mac without both so I haven't done a lot of investigation there.
BTW the dock doesn’t have to be hidden, and idk if it was a typo but alt+tab isn’t a default shortcut. Command is the key used for system shortcuts, so maybe you should have tried that? Like yeah it’s different but that doesn’t make it bad. If you been using it for 10 years without figuring that out…
—-
I’m with you on the 1st party apps though, and the stupid corners on Tahoe.
Anyone is free to claim that I just didn't try, or didn't give it a fair shake, or perhaps I'm just some idiot who doesn't know computers or whatever.
Maybe I just think an OS should work differently, but okay? I've never said that I have some sort of access to a platonic ideal of objective operating systems and that macs don't meet it. I'm saying that I think it's bad and I gave examples of why. And I think I can easily appeal to my experiences seeing others use the OS - I don't think they find anything you're talking about appealing either.
They're not talking about Cmd+H hiding or virtual desktops - those exist on Windows too. The issue is how macOS handles window placement with zero visual feedback.
For example, when you open a new window from a fullscreen app, it just silently appears on another space. No indicator, no notification. You're left guessing whether it even opened and where it went. The placement depends on arcane rules about space layout, fullscreen ordering, and external displays - and it's basically random half the time. You either memorize the exact behavior or manually search through all your spaces.
Feels okay now. Plus native ms365 apps, smooth sleep mode, great hardware and great battery time -- mac has its sweet spots as well.
Linux is ready for prime time for anyone not bound to Windows/MacOS software.
Personally, I'm still on MacOS for work, but all my personal devices run some form of Linux. It's been liberating to say the least.
I suspect in order for this to be true we'd need a PR campaign that can shift culture on the scale of civil rights.
I'm not trying to be hyperbolic or deride Linux or anything—I agree that technologically it's probably ready. Overall UX I'm slightly skeptical. But the far bigger problem is culture.
There's already been a shift away from "PCs" among younger people. The majority of my kids friends have never touched a "regular computer." I've heard an unsettling number of reports of new hires who have never heard of a spreadsheet.
I'm bringing this up because if kids aren't using PCs as much in the first place and quite literally don't know what an operating system is (and please challenge this assumption; I'm going off of anecdata) it's going to be even harder to try to create cultural awareness and acceptance of linux.
But even disregarding that there would need to be a massive, massive coordinated campaign to create a real culture shift. I'm talking superbowl ads.
Again, not trying to be pessimistic, I'm trying to say that "ready for prime time" at this point has little to do with engineering or even design and far more to do with PR. Once I started launching my own products I quickly discovered (as everyone does) that making the thing is like 5% of the job and the remaining 95% is marketing.
She was over there recently and the downloads folder was littered with malware .exe files, so the grandma is trying her hardest to break it.
Not blocking ads helps grandma visit a few more websites that don't work well with adblock.
I think that beats remoting in when granny inevitably gets scammed by an ad.
There really is no excuse in my mind for not running an ad blocker. It's as vital to personal computing security as firewalls and anti malware.
It's funny when people say Linux is difficult for their grandparents or siblings, when that's the place it covers best. And it keeps them from calling you about random adware/spyware/viruses they accidentally installed.
It's prosumers and professionals that have more issues with Linux, because they tend to rely on proprietary software that's problematic to install/use.
Email, browser and a few games... she was pretty happy with it.
At that point I questioned myself: I really should have installed linux for him.
This is still a thing? Browsers still have toolbars???
My go to for family is giving them no install rights, and adding a remote desktop app for me to connect to them when they need something to install.
I don't get called very often anymore, and when I do, it's for their work computer or something, to which I say, talk to your IT department, I can't fix that.
And for a very long time they would have been right. But it seems that all the commercial desktop OSes are in the maximize money extraction-phase now.
If you want to customize your DE a lot - Gnome isn't for you.
If you just want a clean and productive environment by default... Gnome is great.
Once you stop fighting it, sigh, and go with the flow... modern Gnome is genuinely pleasant in that I spend almost zero time thinking about it, and shit just works.
I still run other DEs for some specific purposes where "general use" isn't the goal, but I can reliably hand non-technical family members a machine with Gnome and they don't have to come ask me a bunch of questions.
KDE on the other hand just has these and is also great out-of-the-box (I pretty much run stock KDE).
It's like trying to make a car without any round edges because "square edges are better". Good luck with the wheels!
I can fix that somewhat with extensions, but every normal person I know will take one look at the defaults and abandon it. That's a reasonable choice in my opinion. Why use something where the first interaction gives you a clear indication you're going to be fighting against developer ideology?
Huh? All you need is tab and the arrow keys to navigate the GNOME Settings app. I'm literally doing that right now. Maybe it was a later addition but it works perfectly fine in GNOME 49.
At this point... it's basically anyone who doesn't want to play competitive mp games with poorly implemented anti-cheat, or who doesn't have niche legacy hardware (ex - inverters, CNCs, oscopes, etc).
Steam tackling the gaming side of things has basically unlocked the entire Windows consumer software ecosystem for linux. It's incredibly easy to spin up windows only applications with nothing but GUI only software on most distros at this point.
Crazy how much better a system with a modern linux kernel and Gnome or KDE is than Windows 11. I'm at the point where I also prefer it to macOS... which is funny since I think Gnome was basically playing "copy apple" for a bit there 5 years ago, but now has really just become the simpler, easier to use DE.
This somehow excluded Linux and its DEs, and I eagerly read any news, changelogs, and announcements in this space. They’re still not perfect in every aspect, but at least I see things improving instead of public turf wars between departments trying to improve their KPIs.
Why is there an extra URL handler for MS Edge that bypasses the default browser config? Why is the search bar this wide in the default taskbar config instead of showing a simple button? Why are local searches always sent to Bing with no easy way to switch it off or change the search provider?
I've been going the other way on Linux.
I used to think it might be wise to postpone updates if you were traveling, especially using a rolling distro. Today, I would be quite confident running the updates 10 minutes before leaving.
Granted, this is also because I'm more confident than ever that I could fix most breakages, and worst case the smartphone is there, but I've also not seen big breakages for years.
Unattended security upgrades keep it secure, and in my experience a bit of initial “locking things down and simplifying” is valuable, but after this it’s smooth sailing compared to other older folks I help with Windows systems where MS is constantly throwing at them insane bugs, complete UX changes, ads, or Copilot everywhere.
> Not quite at the point I'd recommend them for grandma and grandpa, but not that far off, either.
But at this point grandma and grandpa are the only ones I'd recommend to use Apple devices.
Now what we appear to have is "someone's opinion" design. A bunch of artists decided their portfolios were a little light and they needed to get their paintbrushes out to do something. I don't work at Apple, but my guess is that their HI area slowly morphed from actual HCI experts into an art department, yet retained their power as experts in machine interaction.
So here we are, we still have Opinionated design, but it might just be based on some VP's vibes rather than research.
Hackers by and large don't want opinionated, because they're willing to spend the time configuring & customizing AND have the knowledge to do so.
Just about everyone else (as far as I can tell) very specifically do not want this, and for those who do, the amount of customizeability e.g. MacOS offers is enough. Having an immediately-useable computer (recent problems notwithstanding) is of much greater value.
So when you say "The main problem is that Apple wants to be opinionated" I can only conclude that you're coming at this from the 'hacker' POV. But I may be misunderstanding your comment.
But every user is in many ways non-average.
Thus if you create a system tailored at the average user, then none of your users will be happy.
This is objectively true. There's an excellent 99PI about exactly this: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/
> Thus if you create a system tailored at the average user, then none of your users will be happy.
This is objectively false. Some users will find some frustration or unhappiness with certain things, but remarkably, there are plenty of software UIs that get the job done for just about everyone.
KDE Dolphin has a static toolbar like Finder, with its config menu being two lists like some Microsoft toolbars, and the available items list is sorted alphabetically.
The flat view switcher is multiple separate items, named directly after their corresponding view type, one called list, another called icons and so on.
So if you want a Finder style view switcher, you first need to know it exists beforehand because the naming is confusing, then you need to know how many views are available beforehand because they're separate items, and finally you need to hunt them down because the list is alphabetical.
This is pretty much the quality you can expect when using KDE software.
Another example is breadcrumbs, the current folder doesn't have an arrow, so you can't browse deeper with it without perhaps expanding folders, unlike on Windows 7. Side bar favourites also replace the top folder, so if you browse the home folder with it you'll often find yourself suddenly unable to use it.
It's speedy though.
These projects have been around for literally decades and really haven't changed much during that time. I think what you're noticing is that Linux desktops are as good as they always have been, but since Apple and Microsoft keep messing with theirs for marketing reasons, in comparison it seems that Linux GUIs are improving.
Gnome 2 => 3 was a bigger and more ambitious transition than anything Microsoft has done. Except maybe DOS => NT. Same thing with KDE 3 => 4.
KDE gets new features on a very regular basis and they're not just, like, little checkboxes added here or there. No. Theyre huge changes. New system resource monitor, new notification center, new widget editor, new panel editor, window tiling... the list goes on. And that's just, like, the past 2 ish years.
Linux GUIs are improving, and rapidly. Before, they were close. But the gap keeps widening. At this point, KDE is so unbelievably far ahead of windows in terms of UI, UX, usability, performance, and feature set that it doesn't seem fair. I don't know if Microsoft can catch up. And, if they could, it would take multiple versions of windows.
I've actually bought a Mac Mini which I use for media consumption and run it besides my Linux (Cachy OS) gaming PC. I have a jellyfin server, but the media client for linux is totally broken.
And, when you use an nvidia card, you really have to do a deep dive on which settings and which render client you want to run. I now have a stable solution that runs KDE Plasma via Wayland, that allows for games to run smoothly. It took me a while to figure that out.
The Linux community also, quite frankly, sucks. When you need to figure something out, you really need to make it a study and only if you know the correct jargon, you are deemed worthy of help. Othrwise you're bombarded with rtfm comments.
my mother and younger sister both prefer it over default Windows 10/11 design. mum says, "feels similar to my phone [pure Android 12] yet I can do so much more".
given that sister only really needs Steam Big Picture and everything mother uses is already in Flathub or defined in a Nix flake, they didn't experience any ecosystem issues
Tbh I have always found window management on Macs to be annoying and something to be avoided- Rectangle or something similar is one of the first things I install and try to use the shortcuts to just put windows in either a quarter or half of the screen.
That said, I use Macbooks for the hardware, if for whatever reason I had to switch to Linux I would just shrug and not care one bit. It took me a few years to realize, but MSFT just disappeared from my life one day and I didn't even notice.
Rather than evolutionary improvements we get Liquid Glass and ads in iWork applications. The enshittification has started I guess.
Speaking as a Tahoe user by the way who is not experiencing any issues to speak of (on 26.0.1 - and I can't reproduce the resizing inconsistency either). I've been using macOS since 2003 (back when it was called Mac OS X) and before that I was a Linux desktop user since 1996.
i'm a daily mac os x user (for a long time) and I think kde plasma is better
If your computer work is anything else, Macs are still decades ahead. With the highest quality software available for any task at cheap prices.
I can't work with a sub-par e-mail client, calendar, no good invoicing app, photo editing, etc.
And web apps do not cut it if working with these things is your job.
As for grandma and grandpa, iPad is their solution. With all the faults of the devices.