5 ms·

I'm sure I'm missing iTerm2's big appeal, but every time I try to use it, I find myself going back to Terminal.app, which I find more responsive and just as fea

by jpsim 11y ago

I'm sure I'm missing iTerm2's big appeal, but every time I try to use it, I find myself going back to Terminal.app, which I find more responsive and just as featureful, especially when combined with zsh and a windowing manager. That's probably just because I'm familiar with it and I didn't come from tmux or anything similar, but I keep hoping I'll be "enlightened" at some point and realize the error of my ways ;)

bentrevor 11y ago
I usually use iTerm2, but I tried to switch to Terminal the other day because I noticed how much more responsive it is. There were a couple small things that kept me with iTerm2: - Both let you set the cursor color, but Terminal doesn't let you set the cursor text color, which is a small annoyance. - Terminal's full-screen goes into a separate desktop, but iTerm2 lets you disable Lion-style full-screen - another small annoyance. - The only real deal-breaker for me was that I couldn't get Ctrl-/ working for Terminal (it's what I use for "undo" in emacs and readline). Even with these things, I tried for a while to get Terminal set up - the faster refresh rate makes it look _really_ smooth compared to iTerm2.
rickhanlonii 11y ago
https://medium.com/@xanderdunn/iterm2-vs-terminal-c06976f106ef#.3x1ip0m3q https://medium.com/@xanderdunn/iterm2-vs-terminal-c06976f106...
- jpsim 11y ago
  Thanks for that, although it similarly hasn't swayed me :D
- autoreleasepool 11y ago
  Which one is the killer feature? The ones listed in that article all seem like extremely minor differences to me.
- duaneb 11y ago
  > Customizability ends up being pretty important for serious developers who are always in the terminal. Ironically, I would say customizability ends up being pretty important for serious developers attempting to avoid working. I can't say my terminal itself—as opposed to the shell—requires any serious modifications at all. (I rewire the left option key and color schemes, and that's about it.)
  - iuyoynp 11y ago
    if you dont heavily optimize your workflow (in this context that would mean improve your shell setup), you can hardly call yourself a "serious developer"
    - duaneb 11y ago
      I guess my point is that the terminal has very, very, very little influence as compared to the ACTUAL shell. Yes, there are power users. I don't see them actually get anything done faster. I moved to Terminal.app when it introduced tabs—KILLER FEATURE—and haven't been happier.
    - ryangittins 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
cooper12 11y ago
All the more power to you. If it works fine for you then it's good enough. Apple has also really caught up on Terminal.app's features. For example it didn't used to have multiple tabs which was a killer feature of iTerm. Personally, I don't even use most of the power features of iTerm except the custom shortcuts. (even preferring to use tmux directly) Still, some alternatives never hurt.
autoreleasepool 11y ago
Same. I've tried it several times and have had the same experience you describe. Terminal.app recently got a nice upgrade too, which made switching to a 3rd party emulator even less compelling. Edit: I tried the beta. It's faster than .app. I'll give it that.
JonnieCache 11y ago
Command clicking on backtraces to open that line in my editor is pretty bloody great. Although if you've rigged up some way to do that with the keyboard alone you're unlikely to be impressed I suppose. It seems to resolve paths relative to the working directory and passes them to `open`. It works for URLs too.
kokonotu 11y ago
I use iTerm2 because I can switch tabs using Command+1 / Command+2 etc.
melted 11y ago
I've found it so good, I switched to using Terminator on Linux. Terminator sort of mimics iTerm2's multi-pane layout, which I find indispensable on high resolution displays.
- monsieurbanana 11y ago
  tmux4life
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by jpsim 11y ago

bentrevor 11y ago

I usually use iTerm2, but I tried to switch to Terminal the other day because I noticed how much more responsive it is. There were a couple small things that kept me with iTerm2: - Both let you set the cursor color, but Terminal doesn't let you set the cursor text color, which is a small annoyance. - Terminal's full-screen goes into a separate desktop, but iTerm2 lets you disable Lion-style full-screen - another small annoyance. - The only real deal-breaker for me was that I couldn't get Ctrl-/ working for Terminal (it's what I use for "undo" in emacs and readline). Even with these things, I tried for a while to get Terminal set up - the faster refresh rate makes it look _really_ smooth compared to iTerm2.

rickhanlonii 11y ago

https://medium.com/@xanderdunn/iterm2-vs-terminal-c06976f106ef#.3x1ip0m3q https://medium.com/@xanderdunn/iterm2-vs-terminal-c06976f106...

jpsim 11y ago
Thanks for that, although it similarly hasn't swayed me :D
autoreleasepool 11y ago
Which one is the killer feature? The ones listed in that article all seem like extremely minor differences to me.
duaneb 11y ago
> Customizability ends up being pretty important for serious developers who are always in the terminal. Ironically, I would say customizability ends up being pretty important for serious developers attempting to avoid working. I can't say my terminal itself—as opposed to the shell—requires any serious modifications at all. (I rewire the left option key and color schemes, and that's about it.)
- iuyoynp 11y ago
  if you dont heavily optimize your workflow (in this context that would mean improve your shell setup), you can hardly call yourself a "serious developer"
  - duaneb 11y ago
    I guess my point is that the terminal has very, very, very little influence as compared to the ACTUAL shell. Yes, there are power users. I don't see them actually get anything done faster. I moved to Terminal.app when it introduced tabs—KILLER FEATURE—and haven't been happier.
  - ryangittins 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

cooper12 11y ago

All the more power to you. If it works fine for you then it's good enough. Apple has also really caught up on Terminal.app's features. For example it didn't used to have multiple tabs which was a killer feature of iTerm. Personally, I don't even use most of the power features of iTerm except the custom shortcuts. (even preferring to use tmux directly) Still, some alternatives never hurt.

autoreleasepool 11y ago

Same. I've tried it several times and have had the same experience you describe. Terminal.app recently got a nice upgrade too, which made switching to a 3rd party emulator even less compelling. Edit: I tried the beta. It's faster than .app. I'll give it that.

JonnieCache 11y ago

Command clicking on backtraces to open that line in my editor is pretty bloody great. Although if you've rigged up some way to do that with the keyboard alone you're unlikely to be impressed I suppose. It seems to resolve paths relative to the working directory and passes them to `open`. It works for URLs too.

kokonotu 11y ago

I use iTerm2 because I can switch tabs using Command+1 / Command+2 etc.

melted 11y ago

I've found it so good, I switched to using Terminator on Linux. Terminator sort of mimics iTerm2's multi-pane layout, which I find indispensable on high resolution displays.

monsieurbanana 11y ago
tmux4life

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]