5 ms·

Have you tried Terminal.app recently? A lot of people seem to rush immediately to iTerm2... And I used to be one of those, a few years back. But eventually I ga

Have you tried Terminal.app recently? A lot of people seem to rush immediately to iTerm2... And I used to be one of those, a few years back. But eventually I gave the built-in Terminal.app a serious chance and found it met all my requirements. Although I also stopped customizing my theme, and I keep as many defaults as possible. SF Mono is a great font!

spinningarrow 9y ago
I still can’t get 256 colours working properly in tmux in Terminal.app - any idea if that’s supported?
MaxBarraclough 9y ago
I did the same thing a few years ago. Terminal.app has had tab support for years now. What's the killer feature of iTerm these days? I also recall finding Terminal.app to have lower CPU consumption, matching postit's experience.
- lambdadmitry 9y ago
  Quake-style console. I'm too addicted to it unfortunately.
  - girvo 9y ago
    Literally the only reason why I use iTerm 2 over Terminal.app as well. Though I'm tempted to see if I can't replicate a similar "show over anything when a hotkey is pressed" in Terminal.app with some cute AppleScript...
- latexr 9y ago
  Probably not a big feature for most, but I work with URLs in the terminal a lot and ⌘+click to immediately open them in the browser is convenient. I prefer to open a new Terminal only when I need it instead of keeping one open all day (even if that sometimes happens) and I’ve never noticed an increase in CPU usage that’d made me want to check.
  - bluerobotcat 9y ago
    Terminal.app does that too
    - latexr 9y ago
      You have to double-click and pressing ⌘ gives no visual feedback. That explains why I didn’t find it before. Thank you for the tip.
  - leshow 9y ago
    scoff how dare you use a mouse. In urxvt I have it mapped to ctrl+u
- brazzledazzle 9y ago
  I really like the tmux integration.
- rdrey 9y ago
  The killer feature for me was setting an "alarm" on a currently running process and getting a notification when it finished. It's not something I've seen in any other terminal. (Using Ubuntu now and missing it.)
  - arjunbajaj 9y ago
    I believe Elementary OS's terminal has this in-built.
  - jhasse 9y ago
    Fedora has this, too.
- haskal 9y ago
  1. When you exit a terminal it dumps irrelevant stuff rather than just closing the tab. ~ % exit [Process completed] 2. Cmd + Arrow doesn't doesn't move to the next or last tab. (Cmd + number does work however, but it doesn't show numbers on the tab list like iTerm) 3. Comes with terrible defaults like the screen color.
  - Jakob 9y ago
    There certainly are some advantages of iTerm2 but the ones you stated are very easily done in Terminal.app: 1. Settings > Profiles > Shell > When the shell exits: [Close the window|Close if the shell exited early|Don’t close the window] 2. macOS standard for all applications is the following. - next tab: ⌃⇥ or ⌘⇧] - previous tab: ⌃⇧⇥ or ⌘⇧[ If you really want to change that, you can do so in System Preferences 3. Settings > New window with profile: Pro
- stormking 9y ago
  > What's the killer feature of iTerm these days? Panes.
  - dmytrish 9y ago
    I don't use panes much, but Terminal.app seems to have panes too.
    - eropple 9y ago
      - Bafflingly, they split horizontally. I have a 4x4 pane setup, but my default is 2x1. - Cmd-W closes the window, not the pane. (I get why they do this. I feel that it is wrong.) - I can't send input to all panes, which is a pretty useful feature I probably use once a week. - iTerm2 happily maps my panes to tmux. This is by itself perhaps a killer feature.
      - dmytrish 9y ago
        Thanks! I feel the same about "tmux vs screen": tmux panes are just so much easier to use and more flexible than in screen, even though screen can split windows).
coldtea 9y ago
>found it met all my requirements. Although I also stopped customizing my theme, and I keep as many defaults as possible Well, if your requirements are low and the defaults are OK, sure, Terminal.app can do it. But iTerm2 does so many more things it's not even funny.
fergie 9y ago
Terminal with GNU Screen works really well for me.

spinningarrow 9y ago

I still can’t get 256 colours working properly in tmux in Terminal.app - any idea if that’s supported?

MaxBarraclough 9y ago

I did the same thing a few years ago. Terminal.app has had tab support for years now. What's the killer feature of iTerm these days? I also recall finding Terminal.app to have lower CPU consumption, matching postit's experience.

lambdadmitry 9y ago
Quake-style console. I'm too addicted to it unfortunately.
- girvo 9y ago
  Literally the only reason why I use iTerm 2 over Terminal.app as well. Though I'm tempted to see if I can't replicate a similar "show over anything when a hotkey is pressed" in Terminal.app with some cute AppleScript...
latexr 9y ago
Probably not a big feature for most, but I work with URLs in the terminal a lot and ⌘+click to immediately open them in the browser is convenient. I prefer to open a new Terminal only when I need it instead of keeping one open all day (even if that sometimes happens) and I’ve never noticed an increase in CPU usage that’d made me want to check.
- bluerobotcat 9y ago
  Terminal.app does that too
  - latexr 9y ago
    You have to double-click and pressing ⌘ gives no visual feedback. That explains why I didn’t find it before. Thank you for the tip.
- leshow 9y ago
  scoff how dare you use a mouse. In urxvt I have it mapped to ctrl+u
brazzledazzle 9y ago
I really like the tmux integration.
rdrey 9y ago
The killer feature for me was setting an "alarm" on a currently running process and getting a notification when it finished. It's not something I've seen in any other terminal. (Using Ubuntu now and missing it.)
- arjunbajaj 9y ago
  I believe Elementary OS's terminal has this in-built.
- jhasse 9y ago
  Fedora has this, too.
haskal 9y ago
1. When you exit a terminal it dumps irrelevant stuff rather than just closing the tab. ~ % exit [Process completed] 2. Cmd + Arrow doesn't doesn't move to the next or last tab. (Cmd + number does work however, but it doesn't show numbers on the tab list like iTerm) 3. Comes with terrible defaults like the screen color.
- Jakob 9y ago
  There certainly are some advantages of iTerm2 but the ones you stated are very easily done in Terminal.app: 1. Settings > Profiles > Shell > When the shell exits: [Close the window|Close if the shell exited early|Don’t close the window] 2. macOS standard for all applications is the following. - next tab: ⌃⇥ or ⌘⇧] - previous tab: ⌃⇧⇥ or ⌘⇧[ If you really want to change that, you can do so in System Preferences 3. Settings > New window with profile: Pro
stormking 9y ago
> What's the killer feature of iTerm these days? Panes.
- dmytrish 9y ago
  I don't use panes much, but Terminal.app seems to have panes too.
  - eropple 9y ago
    - Bafflingly, they split horizontally. I have a 4x4 pane setup, but my default is 2x1. - Cmd-W closes the window, not the pane. (I get why they do this. I feel that it is wrong.) - I can't send input to all panes, which is a pretty useful feature I probably use once a week. - iTerm2 happily maps my panes to tmux. This is by itself perhaps a killer feature.
    - dmytrish 9y ago
      Thanks! I feel the same about "tmux vs screen": tmux panes are just so much easier to use and more flexible than in screen, even though screen can split windows).

coldtea 9y ago

>found it met all my requirements. Although I also stopped customizing my theme, and I keep as many defaults as possible Well, if your requirements are low and the defaults are OK, sure, Terminal.app can do it. But iTerm2 does so many more things it's not even funny.

fergie 9y ago

Terminal with GNU Screen works really well for me.